Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Scope and Purpose ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Overview ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 Progress against the London Plan’s Six Objectives ......................................................................................... 8 Progress on the Sub Regional Implementation Frameworks (SRIF) ................................................................. 13 Progress on Supplementary Planning Guidance, Best Practice Guidance and Mayoral Strategies ........... 13 Progress on Major Developments ................................................................................................................... 16 Summary of Mayoral Planning Activity ........................................................................................................... 16 London Development Database ................................................................................................... 19 London Planning Awards 2009 ..................................................................................................... 20 Update on inter regional issues .................................................................................................... 20 Outer London Commission ........................................................................................................... 20 Changes to the London Plan ........................................................................................................ 21 Olympic and Paralympic Games ........................................................................................................ 21 Looking to the Future ............................................................................................................................... ...... 21 Appendix 1 – Key Performance Indicators ...................................................................................................... 23 Objective 1 - To accommodate London’s growth within its boundaries without encroaching on open spaces .................................................................................................................................. 23 Objective 2 - To make London a better city for people to live in .................................................. 30 Objective 3 - To make London a more prosperous city ................................................................ 40 Objective 4 - To promote social inclusion and tackle deprivation and discrimination ................... 43 Objective 5 - To improve London’s accessibility .................................................................................. 46 Objective 6 - To make London a more attractive, well-designed and green city .......................... 51 Appendix 2 – Contextual Indicators ................................................................................................................ 62 Appendix 3 - Schedule of Progress on Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification ......................... 65 Appendix 4 - National Regional Planning Guidance Indicators ....................................................................... 68 Appendix 5 - Mayoral activity on Development Plans ..................................................................................... 69 Appendix 6 - Affordability Thresholds for Social and Intermediate housing .................................................... 72 Appendix 7 - Progress on Regional Flood Risk Appraisal (RFRA) Recommendations ............................ 74 Appendix 8 - Housing Provision in London 2007/8: Annual Monitor ............................................................. 76

Index of Tables and Figures

Table 1 Summary Progress against Key Performance Indicators ................................................................. 3 Figure 1 Employment in London 1982-2009 (EBS figures) ........................................................................... 9 Figure 2 ILO Unemployment Rate (aged 16 and over) October–December 2009 ........................................ 10 Table 2 Progress of London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance ......................................................... 13 Table 3 Progress of London Plan Best Practice Guidance ........................................................................... 14 Table 4 Progress of Mayoral Strategies ........................................................................................................ 14 Table 5 Planning Applications Referred to the Mayor .................................................................................. 17 Table 6 Progress with Core Strategy Development Plan Documents ......................................................... 19 Table 7 Percentage of development on previously developed land within London .................................. 23 Table 9 Density of Residential development by borough ........................................................................... 25 Table 10 Residential approvals compared to the density matrix ................................................................. 26 Table 11 Changes in open space due to new development or change of use 2008/9 .................................. 27 Table 12 Losses Of Protected Open Space in Planning Approvals 2008/09 ........................................ 28 Table 13 Borough Progress on Open Space Audits (2009) ................................................................. 29 Table 14 Number of net housing completions by borough 2008/09 .................................................. 30 Table 15 Net Conventional Housing Completion trends ................................................................. 31 Table 16 Residential planning approvals 2008/09 (Net no. of dwellings) ........................................ 31 Table 17 Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessible homes approved during 2008/09 (all development types) ................................................................. 32 Table 18 Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessible Homes approved during 2008/09 (New Build residential developments) ................................................................. 33 Table 19 Affordable Housing Construction (three year totals) .......................................................... 35 Figure 3 Borough Affordable Housing Completions (2006/07-2008/09 average) .......................... 36 Table 20 Affordable housing policy by borough .............................................................................. 37 Table 21 Life expectancy at Birth (2000-2002 and 2006-2008) ....................................................... 38 Table 22 Standardised Mortality Rates (Ischaemic deaths) ............................................................... 39 Table 23 Workers in London 1991 and 2001 .................................................................................. 40 Table 24 Londoners Out-commuting 1991 and 2001 ..................................................................... 40 Table 25 Londoners Out-commuting 2001-2008 ............................................................................ 40 Table 26 Ratio of planning permissions to three-year average starts in central London ................. 41 Figure 4 Office starts and year-end permissions in central London 1985-2009 ............................. 41 Table 27 Age specific unemployment rates for White and BAME groups, Greater London .......... 43 Table 28 Lone parents on Income Support as % of all lone parent families .................................. 44 Table 29 GCSE A\*-C Grade Passes ............................................................................................... 45 Table 30 Public and private transport indexes .............................................................................. 46 Table 31 Traffic (billion vehicle kilometres, all vehicles) 2001-2008: Inner and Outer London .... 47 Table 32 Passengers on the River Thames ..................................................................................... 48 Table 33 Cargo trade on the River Thames .................................................................................... 48 Table 34 Employment floorspace permitted by PTAL zone – 2008/9 Approvals ............................ 50 Table 35 Changes in protected habitat due to new development .................................................... 51 Table 36 London’s municipal waste recycling rate 2000/01 – 2008/09 ........................................... 52 Table 37 Regional household recycling rates 2000/01 to 2008/09 (percentage) ............................ 53 Table 38 Total Municipal Waste in London .................................................................................... 53 Table 39 Development Plan Document and Core Strategy Consultations in 2009 ......................... 54 Table 40 Waste to be managed in London apportioned by borough ............................................. 55 Table 41 London CO₂ Emissions 1990-2008 .................................................................................. 56 Table 42 Energy produced in London per annum from renewable sources .................................... 58 Table 43 Progress of Boroughs preparing Strategic Flood Risk Appraisals (September 2009) ....... 59 Table 44 Proportion of Listed Building entries at Risk in London .................................................. 60

Index of Tables and Figures in the Housing Provision Monitor (Appendix 8)

Figure HPM 1: Total 2008/9 Housing Supply against London Plan target, ranked by delivery as percentage of target ........................................................................................................ 82 Map HPM 1: Affordable Housing Provision By Borough .................................................................. 83 Map HPM 2: Lifetime Homes as a percentage of Residential Approvals by Borough .................. 84 Map HPM 3: Wheelchair Accessible Homes as a percentage of Residential Approvals by Borough ........................................................................................................ 85 Table HPM 1: 2008/09 Conventional Planning Approvals ............................................................... 86 Table HPM 2: 2008/09 Total net completions against target ............................................................ 88 Table HPM 3: 2008/09 Conventional Planning Completions ............................................................ 90 Table HPM 4: 2008/09 Conventional Starts .................................................................................... 92 Table HPM 5: 2008/09 Total net conventional completions against target .................................... 94 Table HPM 6a: Net total conventional completions in London, 2006/07 to 2008/09 .................... 96 Executive Summary

Monitoring the interplay of forces which drive the best big city in the world is always a challenge. Data constraints apart it depends on a combination of leading and lagging indicators to reflect the complex mix of global and national trends which contribute to London’s distinct character. This is especially the case for this, the sixth London Plan Annual Monitoring Report (AMR), which focuses on 2008/9 – a year which may or may not have marked the nadir of the deepest recession since the second world war. At the time of writing “is it a ‘V’ or is it a ‘W’” is perhaps the key issue for those concerned for London’s future and its part in contributing to national recovery.

But underlying this is the Mayor’s primary concern for London’s longer term prospects. In this regard, the results of this AMR are broadly positive while showing that there is still room for further improvement.

Unlike many cities elsewhere in Europe, London continues to grow demographically, albeit at a slower rate than in the recent past. It also continues to be more youthful than the country as a whole. Employment has contracted, but not to the extent that was expected a year ago, or along the line of the precipitous fall recorded in the recession of the early 1990s.

Contrary to the national picture, housing output (30,300 homes) edged ahead of last year’s record to fractionally below the long term target of 30,500 pa. Similarly, new build affordable housing (10,600) is slightly above last year’s figure (10,400). Of course this does not mean that these trends will continue inexorably upward – while investment is in place for 50,000 more affordable homes by 2012, economic circumstances may well bear on overall future housing performance. Housing approvals have fallen by 43%, but with approved capacity for over150,000 more homes in the development pipeline, the planning system should not constrain future recovery.

Perhaps contrary to popular perception, progress is being made in improving London’s essential public transport infrastructure. 70% of the surface land needed to accommodate Crossrail has been acquired in central London and work has already started on Tottenham Court Road and Canary Wharf stations. The East London Line to Croydon is on track for completion this year and Phase 2 to Clapham Junction via Peckham is scheduled for 2012. Tube upgrade works should result in a significant upgrade in service on the Victoria line by 2012 when peak hour services will increase from 27 to 33 trains per hour. At the same time, the first phase of the Northern line improvements should result in 20% more capacity and an 18% reduction in journey times. Improvements to the District, Circle, Hammersmith & City, and Metropolitan lines should be complete by 2018, followed by those to the Bakerloo.

London has continued to grow within its limits, with almost 99% of new housing on previously developed land – very substantially above the national target of 60%. The challenge will be to keep to target while taking a more sensitive approach to housing density – that for approvals already shows a decline over 2007/2008. The loss of protected habitats has been reduced and the proportion of municipal waste which is recycled or composted has improved, though greater efforts will be needed to achieve the strategic target. So too will initiatives to open up London’s opportunities to all its residents – while the percentage of lone parents dependent on benefits has declined, progress has not been made in closing the gap between unemployment rates for white Londoners and those from other ethnic backgrounds.

This year has also seen significant progress in revising a number of mayoral strategies, most importantly perhaps for this report preparing a new (or ‘replacement’) London Plan. For the first time the draft Plan has been consulted on at the same time as the Economic Development and transport Strategies, together setting out a policy framework to deliver the Mayor’s vision of London as the best big city in the world. Scope and Purpose

This is the sixth London Plan Annual Monitoring Report (AMR6). The AMR is the central document in the monitoring process required by law to assess the effectiveness of the Mayor of London’s spatial development strategy (more commonly known as the London Plan). It is based on the key performance indicators (KPIs) set out in Chapter 6 of the London Plan, but it also contains additional contextual information that helps highlight some more specific challenges facing London. As with past AMRs, AMR6 reviews the overall performance of the London Plan (the version published consolidated with alterations since 2004 in February 2008) with respect to key issues and trends reported in the year 2009/10.

The figures in the appendices generally relate to the period April 2008 to March 2009, although in some cases the most up to date data is provided. Where possible a time series of data is given to help show trends. The appendices also indicate a few areas where proxy data have had to be used.

This report draws on a range of data sources, but the Greater London Authority’s London Development Database (LDD) is of central importance. The LDD is a “live” system monitoring planning permissions and completions, and which provides good quality, comprehensive data for the GLA and London boroughs.

The KPIs used in this report remain the same as in AMR5. A review of monitoring indicators is under way as part of the work to produce a new or “replacement” London Plan.

The scope of the AMR is outlined in Chapter 6B of the London Plan. It has been prepared to reflect the overall policy direction of the Plan, and does not attempt to measure and monitor each of its individual policies – this would make for a very large and complex document, and risk losing important information about overall trends amongst huge amounts of detail. The AMR continues to be important in keeping the London Plan under review (which the Mayor is legally required to do under the Greater London Authority Act 1999); it will also play an important part in informing the preparation of the new London Plan and its public examination (more information about the Plan review process is given below).

The AMR should not be confused with either:

The Mayor’s Annual Report: This is required under the GLA Act 1999. The latest report was published in April 2009 and covers the period 2008/9. It sets out the Mayor’s objectives and the action taken to implement them (looking at economic recovery, tackling crime and quality of life). It shows progress in preparing the Mayor’s strategies, the GLA’s progress against performance indicators and financial information. The report is available on the GLA’s website, at http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/annual_report/docs/ann_rpt_2009.pdf.

The State of the Environment Report: This is also required to be published under the GLA Act 1999, and must be published every four years. The most recent report – the second (the first was published in May 2003) – was issued in 2007. It reports progress on many aspects of London’s environment, covering 36 specific indicators. There is some overlap with some of the KPIs in Appendix 1 of this report. The report is available on the GLA website at http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/soereport.jsp. The third report, which is being prepared jointly with the Environment Agency and Natural England, will be published in 2011. Overview

Table 1 Summary Progress against Key Performance Indicators

| KPI | Progress | Comment | |---------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 - Increasing the proportion of development taking place on previously developed land. Maintain 96% residential development on previously developed land | + | Both approvals and completions are above the 96% target. | | 2 - Increasing the density of residential development. Over 95 percent of development to comply with the housing density location and SRQ matrix | + | Over 95% of all units comply with or exceed the densities specified in the SRQ matrix. For schemes of 15 units or more the total is 99%. | | 3 - Protection of open space. No net loss of open space designated for protection in UDPs due to new development. | - | Nearly 35 hectares (gross) of Green Belt, MOL or other protected open space could be lost as a result of planning permissions granted during 2008/09. For all open space there was a net loss of 18 hectares. | | 4 - An increased supply of new homes. At least 30,500 units per year. | + | Despite the economic downturn, net completions of new homes were up on the previous year, although slightly below target due to an increase in the number of vacant properties. | | 5 - An increased supply of affordable homes. Completion of 50 per cent of new homes as affordable homes each year 2004–2016. | = | Completions of affordable homes were 37% of total conventional completions during 2008/09. | | 5a - By 2026 reducing by at least 10% the gap between life expectancy at birth in Areas of Regeneration and the average in London | = | New target introduced in AMR 5. The nature of the data means that trends cannot be easily identified in the space of 1 year. | | KPI | Progress | Comment | |--------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 5b - By 2015, reducing by at least 10% the gap between the age | = | New indicator introduced in AMR 5. There has been only a minimal change since last year. | | standardized death rate from coronary heart disease per 100,000 | | | | population in Areas for Regeneration and the average in London | | | | 6 - Net increase in the proportion of London residents working in | = | No new data. Only reliably reported through the census. | | London | | | | 7 - Ensure that there is sufficient development capacity in the | + | Low construction starts during 2008/09 saw the ratio rise to 10:1 | | office market by maintaining at least 3:1 ratio of permissions to | | | | 3-year starts | | | | 8 - Direction of economic and population growth to follow the | + | Significant progress has been made in the Opportunity Areas. | | indicative sub-regional allocations and fulfil the priority to east | | | | London | | | | 9 - Age specific unemployment rates for BAME groups to be no higher | - | People from BAME groups remain twice as likely to be unemployed as people from White groups. | | than for the white population by 2016, 50 % reduction of the | | | | difference by 2011 | | | | 10 - Percentage of lone parents dependant on income support to be | + | There has been a significant drop in the number of lone parents claiming income support in London and the percentage difference fell faster in London than in the rest of the UK. The difference in the rates of 7.6% is the lowest since 2001. | | no higher than the UK average by 2016, 50 per cent reduction of | | | | the difference by 2011 | | | | 11a - An increase in the provision of childcare places per 1,000 | N/A | The information for this indicator is no longer available. | | under fives, particularly in Areas for Regeneration | | | | 11b - An improvement in the percentage of pupils obtaining 5 or | - | While there has been an improvement across the regeneration wards, London as a whole has seen a slightly faster rate of improvement | | more GCSEs at grades A-C in areas for regeneration relative to the | | | | LEA as a whole | | | | 12 - Use of public transport per head grows faster than use of the | + | 2008 saw a continuing drop in the use of the car and a rise in the use of public transport. | | private car per head | | | | KPI | Progress | Comment | |--------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 13 - From 2001-2011, 15 per cent reduction in traffic in the | + | Traffic declined in all zones and traffic reduction levels remain on target to exceed those required by this indicator. | | congestion charging zone, zero traffic growth in inner London, | | | | and traffic growth in outer London reduced to no more than 5 per | | | | cent. | | | | 14 - A five per cent increase in passengers and freight | + | There was a 26.5% increase in passengers and an 8% increase in cargo carried in 2008/09 despite the looming economic downturn. | | transported on the Blue Ribbon Network from 2001-2011 | | | | 15 - 50 per cent increase in public transport capacity between | + | On target based on existing and planned investment in public transport. | | 2001 and 2021, with interim increases to reflect Table 6A.2. | | | | 16 - Regular assessment of the adequacy of transport capacity to | + | TfL continues to work with the Boroughs and other partners to ensure improvements in public transport at major development sites. | | support development in opportunity and intensification areas. | | | | 17 - Maintain at least 50% of B1 development in PTAL zones 5-6 | +/- | Over 75% of B1 uses are in suitable locations with high PTAL scores. The targets for B2 and B8 have not been met. | | and at least 90% of B2 and B8 development in zones 0-2. | | | | 18 - No net loss of designated Sites of Importance for Nature | + | The net loss of 0.813 hectares recorded in planning permissions approved during 2008/09 represents a substantial improvement on the | | Conservation over the plan period. | | previous year. | | 19 - Increase in municipal waste recycled or composted At least | = | The proportion of municipal waste being recycled or composted continues to grow, but the 35 % target for 2010 is unlikely to be | | 35 per cent by 2010 At least 45 per cent by 2015 | | achieved. | | 20 - Achievement of quantified requirement for waste treatment | + | Revised borough level waste apportionment figures have been published for consultation in the revised London Plan. | | facilities | | | | 21 - 75% (16 million tonnes) of London’s waste treated or | + | GLA estimates suggest that 78% of London’s waste is currently managed within London. | | disposed of within London by 2010 | | | The London Plan was first published in February 2004 and republished in 2008, consolidated with the alterations made to it since 2004. This is the version that is currently in force and from which the indicators in this report are taken. A full review of the plan started in late 2008, with public consultation on a Draft Replacement London Plan taking place between 12th October 2009 and 12th January 2010. An Examination in Public into the draft Replacement Plan is due to start in June of this year. The revised plan is on schedule for publication in late 2011. More details can be found on the GLA’s website, http://www.london.gov.uk/shaping-london.

The tables in Appendix 1 of this report demonstrate mixed outcomes against the KPIs. The delivery of new housing was strong, with net completions up on the previous year. Whilst new development maintained the target level of 96% on brownfield land, a number of schemes were permitted on greenfield sites that would lead to the loss of 26.3ha of open space including 5.6ha of protected habitats (in both cases significantly less than in 2007/8, when the figures were 78.5ha and 20.9ha respectively). Most of the social, health and education indicators have shown broadly neutral trends, reflecting the more difficult economic situation over the past year, while the transport indicators have shown positive trends.

The London Plan has a vital role in co-ordinating and securing the infrastructure essential to support London’s growth. This infrastructure includes transport, utilities, education, health and social facilities. The Mayor is stepping up engagement with the providers of these facilities, especially in terms of social infrastructure, to ensure that their plans complement the London Plan and to inform the policies in the draft replacement Plan. More directly, this year has seen work on an alteration to the London Plan to enable use of the planning system to secure the funding needed for the Crossrail project. This was the subject of an Examination in Public in December 2009.

Work on the infrastructure and facilities for the London Olympics and Paralympics is now well under way. Up to date progress can be checked on the Olympic Delivery Authority website http://www.london2012.com/index.php and the London Development Agency Website http://www.lda.gov.uk/server/show/nav.00100h003. Detailed planning for the Olympic Legacy has commenced, and the GLA is preparing an Olympic Legacy Strategic Planning Guidance to ensure the strategic planning policy framework required is in place.

In terms of housing provision, this is the second year of monitoring against the London Plan target of 30,500. In 2007/2008, 28,199 net additional dwellings represented 92% of the target; the equivalent figure for 2008/2009 was 30,312 or 99.6% of the target. The actual number of net dwellings constructed was 30,746 (up from 29,150 in 2007-8). The overall monitoring figure was however reduced by a net increase in the number of long term vacant properties of 460, although this increase was less than half that seen in 2007-8.

These figures may be surprising given reports of the severe effect that the economic downturn has had on the homebuilding industry nationally. It is likely that they reflect a large “overhang” from developments started before the worst of the recession bit – this may be confirmed by the 43% decline in residential planning approvals 2007/8-2008/9. Progress against the London Plan’s Six Objectives

Objective 1 - To accommodate London’s growth within its boundaries without encroaching on open spaces

Ensuring that development makes the most efficient use of land without encroaching on parks, the Green Belt, designated open spaces and other environmental assets is central to the London Plan’s strategy of managing the capital’s growth sustainably.

The London Development Database shows that of the housing development permitted in 2008/09, virtually all (98.8% units) have continued to be on previously developed land. This is an increase on last year (96%), and is comparable with performance in previous years. London continues to perform ahead of the other United Kingdom regions on this measure and well ahead of the national 60% target. It is also reflected in the figures for changes in open space due to new development or change of use. In 2008/9, 5.6 hectares have been lost to completed development, compared with 20.8 hectares the year before (a figure inflated by the Slade Green Rail Freight Depot in Bexley which was granted planning permission by the Secretary of State).

While densities on completed schemes rose from 121 dwellings per hectare in 2007/8 to 129 (with 97% of approved residential schemes reaching the Sustainable Residential Quality mark in the London Plan), those on approved schemes dropped from 150 dwellings per hectare to 136. Taken with the drop in approvals, it seems likely that AMR7 may paint a different picture of the housing market.

The Mayor has expressed concern over the quality of design of some of the new dwellings being built. With this in mind the draft Replacement London Plan sets out policies to improve housing quality, including space standards.

Objective 2 - To make London a better city for people to live in

In a growing city, it is essential to ensure supply of enough new homes for people to live in, and which they can afford. The picture revealed by the data in this report is one of strong housing delivery, with net supply reaching 99.4% of the London Plan target of 30,500 (30,312 homes). Of the 28,302 net conventional completions 10,588, or 37.4%, were affordable (up from 10,370 or 36.7%).

The next AMR is likely to show a different situation. Residential approvals in 2008/9 were down 43% on the year before, and this may feed through into a lower figure for completions in the future. However, this in itself may not constrain output because London has maintained a substantial stock of housing capacity, with over 150,000 homes in the development pipeline. Overall, the figures in this document reflect the success of the London Plan in encouraging housing supply before exceptional economic circumstances intervened.

This AMR reports for the first time on the number of homes approved in planning permissions during 2008/09 that meet the Lifetime Homes standard (47%, or 55% excluding conversions), or which are wheelchair accessible (6% or 7% excluding conversions). London Plan policy is that all new homes should be built to Lifetime Homes Standards and that 10% should be designed to be wheelchair accessible, and these figures, together with the wide disparities in outcomes between boroughs shown in Tables 17 and 18, show that there is considerable scope for improvements if the needs of a changing population are to be addressed. Further details about the standards are given in Appendix 1. Under the GLA Act 2007, the Mayor has responsibility for publishing a London Housing Strategy. A draft Strategy was published for public consultation in May 2009, and the final document will be issued shortly. The Strategy will set out the Mayor’s vision for housing in London:

- to raise aspirations and promote opportunity: by producing more affordable homes, particularly for families, and by increasing opportunities for home ownership through the new First Steps housing programme
- to improve homes and transform neighbourhoods: by improving design quality, by greening homes, by targeting and delivering regeneration and by tackling empty homes
- to maximise delivery and optimise value for money: by creating a new architecture for delivery, by developing new investment models and by promoting new delivery mechanisms.

The Strategy and draft Replacement London Plan outline a new approach to securing affordable housing, replacing a percentage-based approach with one founded upon agreement of numerical targets with individual boroughs. The Mayor is also keen to see the delivery of more family-sized homes and to improve housing design.

Appendix 8 of this year’s AMR contains the Housing Provision in London Monitor, which was published separately until AMR4.

Objective 3 - To make London a more prosperous city

This year has seen the country experience its worst economic downturn since the Second World War, only showing slow economic growth in the fourth quarter of 2009 after eighteen months, or six quarters, of contraction in the national economy. While London has fared better than some other parts of the country, a downturn on this scale (with the national economy shrinking by 4.8%) has inevitably hit the capital and has impacted on the indicators measuring progress against the economic and social objectives in the London Plan. It is still unclear how strong recovery will be, or whether there is a risk of the economy sliding back into negative growth.

Output, while 5.2% down on the mid 2008 peak, rose slightly in the third quarter of 2009. The peak-to-trough fall in employment was 3.1% (118,000) from November 2008/Jan 2009 to May/July 2009, but employment in London has since recovered by 35,000 and appears resilient compared with previous recessions (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 Employment in London 1982-2009 (EBS figures) This decline has been spread across most sectors but was disproportionately high in the production and manufacturing sectors. However, growth was recorded in education, health, transport, communications and retailing. While the London unemployed claimant count is below that for the UK, as usual the internationally defined unemployment rate (9.1%) remains above that of the country as a whole (7.8%) (see Figure 2).

**Figure 2 ILO Unemployment Rate (aged 16 and over) October–December 2009**

From its low in April 2008, the claimant count has risen most sharply in the Western subregion. The most muted rise was in the North East region but there has still been a 62% rise there, underscoring the need to foster the regeneration of East London.

The draft Replacement London Plan seeks to set out a framework of policies to support a growing and ever more diverse economy, ensuring that all London’s enterprises have the workspaces, infrastructure and environments they need to thrive and grow. In particular, it sets out policies aimed at ensuring outer London realises its potential in supporting London’s continued prosperity, informed by the recommendations of the Mayor’s Outer London Commission. The Commission issued an interim report in July 2009 to inform the draft Replacement Plan (the report can be seen at [http://www.london.gov.uk/olc/docs/interim-conclusions.pdf](http://www.london.gov.uk/olc/docs/interim-conclusions.pdf)); its final report will be published shortly.

This year has also seen the development of a draft Economic Development Strategy, “Rising to the Challenge”, which was issued for public consultation in October 2009 and will be published this spring. It set five key objectives: • London as a city that excels as a world capital of business • Ensuring it has the most competitive business environment in the world • Drive London’s transition to a low carbon economy and maximise the opportunities that this creates • Give all Londoners the opportunity to share in London’s success • Maximise the benefits to London from investment to support growth and regeneration.

Objective 4 - To promote social inclusion and tackle deprivation and discrimination

The London Plan is based upon the principles of spatial planning – that is, it deals not just with conventional land use matters but also integrates them with the spatial aspects of a range of other policy areas, including issues of social policy. The KPIs supporting these objectives are aimed at showing whether the gaps between disadvantaged communities and other Londoners are being addressed. In general these show little change on the year before. While there has been an improvement in the percentage of lone parents dependent upon benefits, little progress has been made in closing the gap in age specific unemployment between Blacks, Asian and minority ethnic groups and the white population.

The London Plan 2008 introduced new targets covering education, childcare places and heart disease within its designated Areas for Regeneration. These indicators, reported for the first time in AMR5, replaced the broader “floor targets” indicator reported in previous reports. They show little change with regard to life expectancy and heart disease. While there has been improvement in achievement of 5 or more GCSEs at grades A-C in the regeneration wards, this is against a background of a slightly higher improvement across London as a whole, meaning that the relative position has not improved.

Changes in the information collected by Ofsted mean that it is no longer possible to present the information on childcare places in the same way as in the previous report, and consideration is being given to whether it is possible to find another source of relevant information or, more likely, whether the indicator will have to be replaced.

Objective 5 - To improve London’s accessibility

The Mayor has made clear that London’s future competitiveness rests on its ability and commitment to modernise its transport infrastructure, even in the face of the most challenging financial conditions for more than 30 years. Reflecting the economic downturn, Underground ridership has declined (in January 2010, down 3.3% on the same month in 2009).

The indicators in this report give a generally positive picture of progress against the London Plan’s transport objectives, with continuing decline in car use; a rise in the use of public transport; falls in traffic levels across London; significant increases in freight and passenger use of the Blue Ribbon Network of rivers and waterways, and increased public transport capacity.

The following paragraphs set out progress on the major transport projects in London.

Crossrail – Steady progress has been made with the project since the last AMR. About 70% of the surface land needed in central London for the project has been acquired, with a total value of about £750 million. Crossrail has spent some £650 million on design, consents and construction in advance works such as utility diversions. A Project Delivery Partner has been appointed (“Crossrail Central” – a consortium of Bechtel, Systra and Halcrow). London Underground has started significant Crossrail- related work, notably at Tottenham Court Road, where it is building a ticket hall. Canary Wharf Group will build the station at Canary Wharf, and has already started work.

**East London Line** – Work on the first phase from Dalston Junction via a short connection at New Cross Gate to Crystal Palace and West Croydon is on schedule to be introduced into passenger service in June 2010. Phase Two, which will extend the line west to Clapham Junction via a new connection from Surrey Quays to Queens Road Peckham is projected to be completed in 2012. The line will form part of the London Overground network and will help provide the basis for inner London orbital rail travel.

Work has also continued on the programme of **tube upgrades**. The Victoria Line upgrade, due for completion in late 2012, will enable more trains during peak hours – up to 33 an hour over the current 27 – and will bring faster and more comfortable travel. The Northern Line is being upgraded in two phases; the first, due for completion in January 2012, will bring a new control centre and signalling system, which will allow trains to run closer together and at higher speeds, cutting journey times by 18% and increasing capacity by 20%. The second, due for completion in 2018 will increase capacity by 21% by simplifying and reorganising service patterns and introducing new trains. The Piccadilly Line upgrade is due to be completed in 2014, involving more spacious and faster trains and new signalling, allowing a much higher service frequency. Upgrades on the sub-surface lines (District, Circle, Hammersmith and City and Metropolitan Lines) are due to be complete in 2018, with new trains and signalling, improving service frequency and reliability. The Bakerloo Line upgrade, due for completion in 2020, will bring faster journey times and more capacity, with new trains and signalling. Work is continuing on the Jubilee Line upgrade, although completion has been delayed into 2010. Further details of the upgrade programme can be found at: [http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/10127.aspx](http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/10127.aspx)

**Docklands Light Railway** – Construction of the extension to Stratford International, part-funded by the Olympic Delivery Agency, is well under way; it remains on target for completion in July 2010. Fifty-five new carriages have been ordered to allow trains to be lengthened from two to three cars giving a 50% capacity increase by June 2010. The network is being upgraded to allow for longer trains, and this work should also be complete by June 2010.

**Thameslink** – Work has continued on the Thameslink project. The major re-modelling of the tracks to the east of London Bridge will commence in late 2012. The scheme will be complete by 2015 but in the interim will offer 50% capacity increases prior to the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

**Roads** – The draft Mayor’s Transport Strategy includes proposals to remove the Western Extension to the Congestion Charge Zone.

In October 2009, the Mayor issued a draft Transport Strategy for public consultation. It sets six goals – to:

- Support economic development and population growth
- Enhance quality of life for all Londoners
- Improve the safety and security of all Londoners
- Improve transport opportunities for all Londoners
- Reduce transport’s contribution to climate change and improve its resilience
- Support delivery of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games and their legacy.

Consultation closed on 12 January 2010, and the Strategy will be published in the spring. Further information on transport will be found in “Travel in London – Report number 2” to be published by TfL in March 2010.

**Objective 6 - To make London a more attractive, well-designed and green city**

The London Plan contains policies to ensure that London’s development is sustainable. These include promoting excellence in urban design, inclusive design, protection of biodiversity and open spaces, improving air quality, minimising noise and other pollution, promoting sustainable waste management and minimising the use of resources.

The indicators covering these issues show a generally positive picture. Only a very minor net loss of protected habitats has been reported – less than a hectare, compared with the 18 hectares lost in 2007/8 (due substantially to a single development in Bexley). The proportion of municipal waste recycled or composted, at 25%, has continued to improve, although it seems clear that the 35% target for 2010 is unlikely to be achieved. There has been a fall in the total municipal waste arisings in London, and new modelling suggests that achievement of the target for 75% of London’s waste being treated or disposed of within London by 2010 may be met.

**Progress on the Sub Regional Implementation Frameworks (SRIFs)**

The draft replacement London Plan sets out revised sub-regional boundaries and a new approach to sub-Londonwide working. Given this, work on producing SRIFs has been halted. The new London Plan sets out proposals for a pan-London Implementation Plan to identify the key actions necessary to deliver the Plan’s objectives.

**Progress on Supplementary Planning Guidance, Best Practice Guidance and other Mayoral Strategies.**

Following the publication of the London Plan, a series of Supplementary Planning Guidance (Table 2) and Best Practice Guidance (Table 3) has been produced to inform implementation of strategic policy. The Mayor has also produced a number of other Strategies, which cover important themes for London’s future, see Table 4 below. Many of these are being reviewed or replaced. The consultation on Planning for a Better London revealed a concern amongst some respondents about the amount of SPG and BPG. This will be taken into account in future work programmes.

| Supplementary Planning Guidance Title | Consultation draft | Final Document | |--------------------------------------|--------------------|----------------| | Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment Revised | July 2003 2010 | April 2004 2011 | | Interim Housing (2008 plan) | 2009 | 2010 | | Housing (Draft replacement plan) | 2010 | 2012 | | Sustainable Design and Construction Revised | March 2005 2010/11 | May 2006 2011 | | Land for Transport Functions | May 2006 | March 2007 | | View Management Framework Revised | April 2005 May 2009 | July 2007 Spring 2010 | | Planning for Equality and Diversity in London | December 2006 | October 2007 |

### Table 3 Progress of London Plan Best Practice Guidance

| Best Practice Guidance Title | Consultation draft | Final Document | |------------------------------|--------------------|----------------| | Guide to preparing Open Space Strategies | 2008 | 2009 | | Safeguarded Wharves on the River Thames Implementation Report | | January 2005 | | Development Plan Policies for biodiversity | October 2004 | November 2005 | | Tomorrow’s Suburbs | February 2005 | June 2006 | | Control of dust & emission from construction/demolition | 2010 | 2011 | | Managing the night time economy | June 2006 | March 2007 | | Health issues in Planning | June 2006 | June 2007 | | Wheelchair Accessible Housing | March 2007 | September 2007 | | Improving Access to Nature Implementation Report | March 2007 | February 2008 | | London’s Foundations (Protecting Geodiversity) | July 2008 | March 2009 |

**Note on tables 2 & 3** - specific months indicate definite publication dates; generic dates indicate anticipated publication dates.

Downloadable versions of SPGs and BPGs can be found at: [http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/spg-bpg.jsp](http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/spg-bpg.jsp).

Up to date information on all technical and research reports relating to the London Plan can be found at: [http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/research-reports/technical-research-reports](http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/research-reports/technical-research-reports)

### Table 4 Progress of Mayoral Strategies

| Strategy | Weblink | First published | Updated | |-------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Air Quality | [http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/vision-strategy/air-quality](http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/vision-strategy/air-quality) | September 2002 | Assembly draft published October 2009, public draft due Spring 2010, projected publication Autumn 2010 | | Alcohol and Drugs | [http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/health/focus-issues/drugs](http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/health/focus-issues/drugs) | January 2002 | | | Strategy | Weblink | First published | Updated | |--------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Ambient Noise | http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/clean-calm-city/noise | March 2004 | Review to be considered following publication of national Noise Strategy | | Biodiversity | http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/urban-space/biodiversity | July 2002 | | | Business Waste Management | | | Draft expected Summer 2010 | | Childcare | http://www.lda.gov.uk/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.1213 | November 2003 | | | Children and Young People | http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/young-people/vision-strategy | Vision Strategy | Work on a Statement of Priorities ongoing | | Climate Change Adaptation | http://www.london.gov.uk/climatechange/strategy | | Assembly draft August 2008, public draft February 2010, launch expected December 2010 | | Climate Change Mitigation & Energy | http://www.london.gov.uk/climate-change-mitigation | Energy strategy | Assembly draft February 2010, public draft June 2010, launch expected December 2010 | | Culture | http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor/publications/culture | April 2004 | Assembly draft February 2010, public draft May 2010, launch expected Winter 2010. | | Violence Against Women | http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/crime-community-safety/tackling-priority-crimes/violence-against-women | April 2009 | | | Economic Development | http://lda-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/eds/eds | | Draft published in October 2009, consultation closed in January 2010 | | Food | http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/urban-space/growing-food | May 2006 | Refresh 2010 | | Health Inequalities | http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor/publications/health/health-inequalities-strategy | | Draft published September 2009 | | Housing | http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/london-housing-strategy | | Draft published May 2009, launch expected late February 2010 | | London Tourism Action Plan | http://www.lda.gov.uk/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.1513 | May 2006 | August 2009 | | Strategy | Weblink | First published | Updated | |--------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Municipal Waste | http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/waste/index.jsp | August 2003 | Assembly draft January 2010, public draft summer 2010, launch expected December 2010 | | Older People | | September 2006 | | | Spatial Development | http://www.london.gov.uk/shaping-london/london-plan/ | February 2004 | Draft replacement plan published October 2009. Expected publication Winter 2011 | | (The London Plan) | | | | | Transport | http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/11610.aspx | July 2001 | Draft published October 2009, launch expected Spring 2010 | | Water | http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/vision-strategy/water | | Draft published August 2009, launch expected June 2010 |

For the latest updates visit www.london.gov.uk. Please note that the Mayor’s website is undergoing an extensive review which may lead to web pages moving or being replaced. The links provided were functional as at mid-February 2010.

**Progress on Major Developments**

Appendix 3 contains a summary of progress on implementing development for each of the Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification identified in the London Plan.

**Summary of Mayoral Planning Activity**

The Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 came into force on 6 April 2008 and requires local planning authorities to refer strategic planning applications to the Mayor (the Order defines what is strategic). The Order requires the Mayor to provide a statement of whether he considers the application to conform to the London Plan and the reasons within six weeks of receipt of the referral. The Mayor has the power to direct a borough to refuse planning permission but he does not have the power to direct a borough to grant planning permission. On certain applications, which meet criteria set out in the Order, he can however direct a borough that he will become the local planning authority and determine the application himself.

The Order applies to applications submitted on or after the 6 April 2008. The Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000 still applies to those applications submitted before the 6 April 2008.

As might be expected given the economic situation, there has been a large decrease in the number of applications referred to the Mayor during 2009. The decrease from 334 in 2008 to 240 in 2009 represents a drop of 28%. The decline in activity was not consistent between boroughs, with those in Inner London on average seeing larger decreases than those in Outer London. Compared to the average number of cases for the previous 4 years, the Inner London boroughs had 35% less referable cases in 2009. The City of London epitomized this with just one case in 2009 compared to a high in 2007 of 20. The number of cases in 2009 in the Outer London boroughs was 10% down on the average for the previous 4 years.

This year also saw the Mayor use his power to determine a planning application for the first time following Tower Hamlets’ decision to refuse the application for the Columbus Tower in the Isle of Dogs.

Table 5 Planning Applications Referred to the Mayor

| Borough | 2000 - 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | Total | |--------------------------|-------------|------|------|------|------|------|-------| | City of London | 57 | 15 | 16 | 20 | 5 | 1 | 114 | | Barking & Dagenham | 33 | 3 | 4 | 11 | 8 | 6 | 65 | | Barnet | 15 | 4 | 1 | 8 | 10 | 12 | 50 | | Bexley | 14 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 45 | | Brent | 28 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 9 | 54 | | Bromley | 48 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 73 | | Camden | 11 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 3 | 6 | 37 | | Croydon | 40 | 9 | 6 | 13 | 9 | 8 | 85 | | Ealing | 45 | 6 | 2 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 74 | | Enfield | 26 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 45 | | Greenwich | 39 | 13 | 12 | 28 | 13 | 5 | 110 | | Hackney | 34 | 4 | 10 | 7 | 7 | 13 | 75 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 35 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 68 | | Haringey | 7 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 25 | | Harrow | 8 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 10 | 6 | 37 | | Havering | 28 | 10 | 7 | 2 | 5 | 13 | 65 | | Hillingdon | 59 | 13 | 12 | 15 | 23 | 15 | 137 | | Hounslow | 28 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 11 | 7 | 67 | | Islington | 16 | 5 | 5 | 13 | 5 | 9 | 53 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 9 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 10 | 1 | 29 | | Kingston upon Thames | 16 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 30 | | Lambeth | 35 | 9 | 13 | 7 | 13 | 4 | 81 | | Lewisham | 16 | 10 | 4 | 9 | 7 | 3 | 49 | | Merton | 27 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 3 | 54 | | Newham | 47 | 27 | 19 | 28 | 20 | 16 | 157 | | Redbridge | 10 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 20 | | Richmond upon Thames | 19 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 38 | | Southwark | 71 | 11 | 21 | 13 | 20 | 15 | 151 | | Sutton | 9 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 32 | | Tower Hamlets | 92 | 37 | 36 | 41 | 47 | 30 | 283 | | Waltham Forest | 12 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 22 | | Wandsworth | 25 | 9 | 14 | 11 | 8 | 9 | 76 | | Westminster | 45 | 14 | 15 | 33 | 26 | 11 | 144 | | Totals | 1,004 | 265 | 261 | 341 | 334 | 240 | 2,445 |

Source GLA Planning Decisions Unit Following the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 all local authorities are required to produce a local development framework. The local development framework is a portfolio of local development documents, comprising development plan documents and supplementary planning documents.

Borough Local Development Schemes (LDS) are the local planning authority’s work plan for the production of Local Development Documents that will collectively form the Local Development Framework for each of the boroughs. Every London borough produced an original Local Development Scheme by April 2005. These have been revised at different periods since.

In June 2008 a new power for the Mayor over borough LDSs was introduced. The GLA Act 2007 amended the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act to the effect that the Mayor may direct that amendments be made to the LDS if it is necessary to ensure that key policies of the London Plan are reflected in the LDD work programme. The Mayor may also direct a local planning authority to prepare a revision to their LDS. In 2009, the Mayor approved 14 LDSs and did not direct amendments to any of them.

All London borough local development documents are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan in accordance with Section 24(1) (b) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Boroughs are required to consult the Mayor at each statutory stage in the process of preparation of development plan documents. They are also required to request formally the Mayor’s opinion on general conformity at the same time as the document is submitted to the Secretary of State for examination.

Boroughs are also required to consult the Mayor on supplementary planning documents to the extent that the council thinks he is affected by the document. The Mayor has indicated to boroughs the types of documents he wishes to be consulted on (affordable housing, transport, planning obligations, sustainable development, environmental protection and climate change, waste and planning briefs for sites which could result in referable applications). During 2009 the Mayor responded to nine SPD consultations.

In order to achieve general conformity of local development documents the Mayor has worked proactively with the boroughs, commenting on and holding meetings to discuss informal drafts of documents and meetings to discuss the Mayor’s response to consultation. Appendix 5 summarizes all the development plan related consultations that the Mayor has responded to in 2009.

In 2009 the Mayor responded to 80 consultations on Development Plan Documents (DPDs). These included three issues and options documents and eight preferred options consultations. GLA officers have also responded to informal drafts of documents in a number of instances. The Mayor gave an opinion of general conformity on seven DPDs at the pre-submission or submission stages from six boroughs, Islington, Hackney, Barnet (Colindale AAP), Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth and Wandsworth and the East London Joint Waste Development Plan. Most of these DPDs were originally found not to be in general conformity with the London Plan. However ongoing negotiations before and during EIPs resulted in a number of changes to bring the documents into general conformity with the London Plan.

Table 6 shows progress by London boroughs in preparing their core strategy development plan documents.

### Table 6 Progress with Core Strategy Development Plan Documents

| Core Strategy Stage | No. of boroughs | Borough | |----------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|----------------------------------------------| | Core Strategy Issues and Options yet to be published | 1 | Bromley | | Have published Core Strategy Issues and Options | 7 | Bexley | | | | Ealing | | | | Hounslow | | | | Waltham Forest | | | | Greenwich | | | | Newham | | | | Croydon | | Have published Core Strategy Preferred Options | 11 | Hackney | | | | Enfield | | | | City of London | | | | Hammersmith & Fulham | | | | Hillingdon | | | | Lewisham | | | | Merton | | | | Newham | | | | Kingston upon Thames | | | | Haringey | | | | Harrow | | Core Strategy pre submission or Submission to Secretary of State | 10 | Westminster | | | | Wandsworth | | | | Barking and Dagenham | | | | Brent | | | | Lambeth | | | | Kensington & Chelsea | | | | Camden | | | | Tower Hamlets | | | | Islington | | | | Barking & Dagenham | | Core strategy adopted | 4 | Havering | | | | Redbridge | | | | Richmond | | | | Sutton |

**Note:** Many boroughs are progressing other DPDs at the same time as their Core Strategy or have adopted DPDs in advance of it, for example Kingston Upon Thames’s Kingston Town Centre AAP and Hounslow’s Employment DPD.

**London Development Database**

The London Development Database is the key data source for monitoring planning approvals and completions in London. Data is entered by each of the 33 local planning authorities and the GLA provides a co-ordinating, consistency and quality management role. The database monitors each planning permission from approval through to completion or expiry. Its strength lies in the ability to manipulate data in order to produce various specific reports. The data can also be exported to GIS systems to give a further level of spatial analysis. The London Boroughs each produce their Annual Monitoring Reports by December. In many cases borough AMRs use the same data as the London Plan AMR. However some differences in the data do occur as the LDD database is a live system that is continually updated and adjusted. There are some relatively minor differences in the data used in this AMR compared to the data generated in November as some cases have been updated since then.

There have been no major changes to the LDD system in the last 12 months, although a new version is currently undergoing testing. The major changes relating to monitoring are that the system will start to record the loss or gain of pitches for gypsies and travellers, and apart-hotels and serviced apartments will be monitored separately from other non self-contained accommodation. These changes will come into effect from 1st April 2010. The Government is also proposing to make changes to the status of Houses in Multiple Occupation in the Use Classes Order. LDD will be kept up to date with these changes.

**London Planning Awards 2009**

The Mayor, London First, London Councils and the Royal Town Planning Institution jointly sponsor the annual London Planning Awards to showcase good planning practice in the capital. The London Planning Awards 2009 ceremony is taking place on Monday 29th March 2010. Details of Award winners will be given in next year’s AMR.

**Update on inter regional issues**

The Advisory Forum on Regional Planning for London, the South East and East of England meets three times a year to consider significant cross-regional issues. The three regions take turns in providing the Forum’s chair and Secretariat, and from 2009 these roles have been taken on for a two-year term by the South East. The Forum met twice in 2009 (in February and July) and discussed transport and aviation issues, waste and the work of the Mayor’s Outer London Commission. Given changes to the arrangements for regional planning outside London, it is likely that the work and future shape of the Forum will be reviewed during 2010.

**Outer London Commission**

In 2009 the Mayor established an Outer London Commission to advise on policy approaches he could take in his London Plan and other strategies that would help enable outer London to realise its potential to contribute to the economic success of London as a whole. Chaired by Will McKee, it brought together representatives of business, borough councils, architecture and design, developers and the voluntary sector, together with the GLA Group. Following an extensive series of consultation meetings that included four sub-regional meetings and over 30 smaller meetings with stakeholder groups, it issued an interim report in July 2009 which informed the policies on outer London that are now in the draft replacement London Plan. Its final report is in the course of preparation; it will bring together the evidence base that informed the Commission’s recommendations and set out the justifications for these more fully.

The Commission’s Progress will be reported on its website: [http://www.london.gov.uk/olc/](http://www.london.gov.uk/olc/) Changes to the London Plan

Draft alterations to the London Plan to enable use of the planning system to raise contributions towards the cost of Crossrail, together with supporting supplementary guidance, have been taken forward through the statutory process. There was a round of public consultation between 18 May and 10 August 2009. An examination in public (EiP) was held between 14 and 18 December. The EiP Panel’s report was published on 5th February 2010, and it is intended that the alterations will be formally published in the spring.

A full review of the London Plan has been under way since late 2008. Initial Proposals were issued for consultation with the London Assembly and the GLA functional bodies in April 2009. A draft Replacement London Plan was issued for public consultation on 12 October 2009, with a deadline for comments of 12 January 2010. An examination in public into the draft replacement Plan will open in June 2010. It is anticipated that the new Plan will be formally published in the winter of 2011/12.

Olympic and Paralympic Games

The development of the Olympic and Paralympic Games venues, park and other infrastructure continues apace (see the Olympic Delivery Authority website for more details: http://www.london2012.com/en/). Most visibly the Olympic Stadium’s external structure is now complete and all of the steel sections for the roof support in place. In December 2009, the cable-net roof was lifted into place and lighting towers are currently being assembled on site, ready for installation. The 700 rooms inside the Olympic Stadium are being fitted out. Over 2009, the wave-shaped Aquatics Centre roof was successfully lifted and lowered into place and the foundations and first parts of the London 2012 Handball Arena built above ground. The structure of the Internal Broadcast Centre/Main Press Centre (IBC/MPC) was completed in November 2009, the cladding and finishing details are nearly complete. The velodrome venue will be fully covered by summer 2010.

The structure of the Olympic Village’s first residential blocks were completed in October 2009 and the majority of homes will be structurally finished by summer 2010. Work on the Chobham Academy site, a world-class education campus, has started. Major infrastructure works, including utilities, tunnels and bridges, are also on schedule to be completed by summer 2010. With two and a half years to go until London 2012, all the milestones to date for the Olympic build have been hit, including the most recent Big Build milestones announced in July 2009, expected to be complete by 27 July 2010. The transformation of East London is well underway.

Notably, the London Plan team at the GLA were a key partner in the development of the ODA Inclusive Design Strategy and Standards which were successful in winning the Equality and Diversity Award in this year’s national RTPI Planning Awards 2009.

Looking to the Future

The last AMR suggested that making future projections was more difficult than in previous years. Since then the country has experienced a severe downturn, and while this appears to have had less impact on London than might have been expected, its effect can be seen across many of the indicators reported on in this report.

The last quarter of 2009 showed economic growth of 0.1%, and it appears that any recovery is likely to be gradual. There is lively debate about whether growth will gather speed, or whether we may experience a “double dip” recession. However, it does appear that this is a severe cyclical downturn rather than a more fundamental, structural change in the economy. This reinforces the point that it will be important to bear in mind long-term trends as well as shorter-term factors and to plan now for future growth. The London Plan continues to provide an authoritative strategic framework to coordinate the spatial development of the capital. Appendix 1 – Key Performance Indicators

The London Plan sets out 28 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). These are intended to enable monitoring of the overall thrust of the London Plan’s suite of policies rather than to identify the impact of single policies individually. The Key Performance Indicators are reported below under the most relevant of the London Plan’s six objectives.

Objective 1 - To accommodate London’s growth within its boundaries without encroaching on open spaces

Key Performance Indicator 1 Increasing the proportion of development taking place on previously developed land.

Target Maintain at least 96% of new residential development to be on previously developed land.

Table 7 Percentage of development on previously developed land within London

| Year | % of development approved on previously developed land within London | % of development completed on previously developed land within London | |------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------| | | By site area | By no. of units | By site area | By no. of units | | 2000 | 89% ODPM | | | | | 2001 | 90% ODPM | | | | | 2002 | 90% ODPM | | | | | 2003 | 94% ODPM | | | | | 2004/5 | 96% LDD | | | | | 2005/6 | 95.8% LDD | | | | | 2006/7 | 96.6% LDD | 98% | 95.4% | 96.9% | | 2007/8 | 94.4% LDD | 96.4% | 93.5% | 96% | | 2008/9 | 96.4% | 98.7% | 98.0% | 98.9% |

Sources: 2000-2003 - ODPM – all completed development using calendar years. 2004 onwards – London Development Database using Financial years.

Note: The % is calculated using residential planning permissions granted / completed during the financial year. Completions are allocated to the year in which the final part of the scheme is finished. Only permissions for which a site area can be calculated are included. Details and Reserved Matters permissions are not included in Approvals but are included in Completions. Improvements to the reporting software used by LDD have led to changes in the way that non-residential elements of residential schemes are excluded from the final calculations. It is intended to review the LDD figures from previous years using the new calculation method in the next AMR.

The 2008 Consolidated version of the London Plan changed the target for this indicator to reflect the already high level of brownfield development in London. Table 8 Percentage of development on previously developed land within London

| Borough | 2006/7 completed | 2006/7 approved | 2007/8 completed | 2007/8 approved | 2008/9 completed | 2008/9 approved | |--------------------------|------------------|-----------------|------------------|-----------------|------------------|-----------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 47.6 | 99.4 | 79.0 | 90.9 | 100 | 74.4 | | Barnet | 98.6 | 98.7 | 96.2 | 87.2 | 100 | 98.5 | | Bexley | 90.7 | 100 | 75.8 | 100 | 100 | 100 | | Brent | 98.2 | 95.7 | 100 | 99.1 | 98.6 | 96.9 | | Bromley | 96.7 | 90.8 | 100 | 67.9 | 98.1 | 98.1 | | Camden | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | | City of London | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | | Croydon | 100 | 99.9 | 99.1 | 100 | 100 | 99.3 | | Ealing | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 97.6 | 100 | | Enfield | 100 | 96.4 | 96.6 | 91.3 | 100 | 100 | | Greenwich | 100 | 100 | 100 | 98.4 | 97.3 | 100 | | Hackney | 88.7 | 100 | 100 | 99.9 | 100 | 100 | | Ham & Fulham | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | | Haringey | 100 | 98.8 | 100 | 99.9 | 98.7 | 100 | | Harrow | 100 | 100 | 100 | 99.2 | 100 | 99.8 | | Havering | 97.3 | 99.9 | 96.9 | 75.7 | 100 | 98.9 | | Hillingdon | 100 | 72.7 | 100 | 92.6 | 96.7 | 100 | | Hounslow | 100 | 99.9 | 71.7 | 93.0 | 99.1 | 99.9 | | Islington | 98.2 | 99.7 | 99.2 | 97.2 | 99.6 | 98.1 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 100 | 100 | 100 | 99.8 | 100 | 99.6 | | Kingston u Thames | 95.8 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | | Lambeth | 100 | 100 | 100 | 99.5 | 100 | 100 | | Lewisham | 100 | 99.3 | 93.5 | 100 | 99.1 | 100 | | Merton | 98.9 | 100 | 100 | 92.6 | 100 | 98.7 | | Newham | 100 | 99.6 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | | Redbridge | 100 | 90.8 | 63.5 | 100 | 69.8 | 100 | | Richmond u Thames | 95.0 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | | Southwark | 100 | 99.8 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 99.3 | | Sutton | 94.6 | 92.5 | 72.5 | 100 | 100 | 98.4 | | Tower Hamlets | 95.1 | 97.8 | 93.6 | 99.6 | 97.3 | 100 | | Waltham Forest | 95.9 | 99.2 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | | Wandsworth | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | | City of Westminster | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | | London | **96.9** | **98.0** | **96.0** | **96.4** | **98.9** | **98.7** |

Source: London Development Database Key Performance Indicator 2 Increasing the density of residential development

**Target** Over 95 per cent of development to comply with the housing density location and SRQ matrix

### Table 9 Density of Residential development by borough

| Borough | Approvals Average 2001-2004 | 2005/6 | 2006/7 | 2007/8 | 2008/9 | Completions 2006/7 | 2007/8 | 2008/9 | |--------------------------|-----------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|-------------------|--------|--------| | Barking & Dagenham | 70 | 122 | 165 | 146 | 80 | 95 | 126 | 144 | | Barnet | 54 | 133 | 78 | 79 | 113 | 55 | 103 | 115 | | Bexley | 32 | 58 | 87 | 51 | 99 | 44 | 47 | 75 | | Brent | 71 | 167 | 199 | 149 | 133 | 113 | 106 | 145 | | Bromley | 31 | 34 | 44 | 49 | 36 | 54 | 53 | 35 | | Camden | 77 | 115 | 227 | 102 | 122 | 113 | 128 | 143 | | City of London | 960 | 368 | 525 | 1263 | 157 | 423 | 558 | 505 | | Croydon | 47 | 90 | 115 | 106 | 130 | 79 | 72 | 98 | | Ealing | 63 | 182 | 122 | 113 | 160 | 198 | 142 | 162 | | Enfield | 48 | 79 | 52 | 82 | 66 | 74 | 94 | 70 | | Greenwich | 48 | 115 | 161 | 246 | 185 | 172 | 151 | 124 | | Hackney | 103 | 236 | 273 | 240 | 201 | 274 | 189 | 236 | | Ham & Fulham | 71 | 219 | 160 | 227 | 187 | 116 | 143 | 197 | | Haringey | 84 | 117 | 136 | 173 | 114 | 179 | 141 | 163 | | Harrow | 53 | 71 | 111 | 90 | 59 | 79 | 79 | 71 | | Havering | 46 | 95 | 60 | 41 | 55 | 58 | 59 | 73 | | Hillingdon | 46 | 41 | 85 | 69 | 91 | 48 | 55 | 60 | | Hounslow | 69 | 117 | 156 | 95 | 164 | 121 | 118 | 120 | | Islington | 93 | 223 | 319 | 255 | 259 | 157 | 228 | 288 | | Ken & Chelsea | 120 | 206 | 170 | 164 | 138 | 136 | 188 | 148 | | Kingston u Thames | 54 | 102 | 45 | 60 | 77 | 86 | 103 | 59 | | Lambeth | 102 | 186 | 203 | 216 | 127 | 141 | 162 | 173 | | Lewisham | 81 | 170 | 142 | 173 | 163 | 109 | 128 | 142 | | Merton | 65 | 101 | 64 | 94 | 73 | 104 | 102 | 46 | | Newham | 97 | 261 | 269 | 347 | 366 | 163 | 300 | 262 | | Redbridge | 60 | 138 | 150 | 116 | 87 | 126 | 97 | 115 | | Richmond u Thames | 58 | 91 | 83 | 60 | 58 | 76 | 52 | 82 | | Southwark | 102 | 279 | 285 | 277 | 327 | 272 | 269 | 229 | | Sutton | 49 | 63 | 70 | 118 | 92 | 60 | 53 | 89 | | Tower Hamlets | 138 | 416 | 348 | 482 | 311 | 236 | 294 | 312 | | Waltham Forest | 44 | 123 | 130 | 128 | 119 | 142 | 128 | 132 | | Wandsworth | 93 | 148 | 154 | 151 | 171 | 169 | 135 | 172 | | Westminster | 144 | 282 | 160 | 254 | 154 | 247 | 215 | 261 | | LONDON | **85** | **134**| **129**| **150**| **136**| **120** | **121**| **129**|

**Source:** London Development Database

**Note:** Based on all residential approvals/completions for which a site area could be calculated. Density is calculated by dividing the total number of units by the total residential site area. LDD figures for 2001-2004 apply to schemes with 10 or more units. Table 10 Residential approvals compared to the density matrix

| Financial Year | % of units approvals | |----------------|----------------------| | | Within Range | Above range | Below Range | | 2004/05 | 31% | 62% | 8% | | 2005/06 | 28% | 65% | 7% | | 2006/7 over 15 units | 39% | 58% | 3% | | 2006/7 all units | 50% | 32% | 18% | | 2007/8 over 15 units | 36% | 63% | 2% | | 2007/8 all units | 40% | 55% | 5% | | 2008/9 over 15 units | 26% | 73% | 1% | | 2008/9 all units | 33% | 64% | 4% |

Source: London Development Database. Note: Figures don’t total 100% due to rounding.

Key Performance Indicator 3 Protection of open space

Target No net loss of open space designated for protection in UDPs due to new development.

The table below shows all losses and gains of open space recorded on the London Development Database. It is not restricted to protected open space as the designation for protection of new open space is a separate process that occurs after the open space has been created. As we do not currently monitor the designation of new open space, looking at changes in all open space is the best proxy measure of this indicator.

The definition of open space is taken from PPG17 and excludes private residential gardens and other areas within the curtilage of previously developed sites. The exceptions are outdoor sports facilities and spaces designated for conservation or protection, which are included even though they may be within the curtilage of a developed site. Table 11 Changes in open space due to new development or change of use 2008/9

| Borough | Approvals | Proposed open space (ha)\* | Net loss or gain (ha) | Completions | Proposed open space (ha)\* | Net loss or gain (ha) | |--------------------------|-----------|---------------------------|-----------------------|-------------|---------------------------|-----------------------| | | Existing open space (ha) | Net loss or gain (ha) | Existing open space (ha) | Net loss or gain (ha) | | Barking & Dagenham | 12.700 | -9.341 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Barnet | 1.329 | 2.241 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Bexley | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Brent | 0.945 | -0.842 | 0.216 | 0.540 | 0.324 | 0 | | Bromley | 1.748 | -0.693 | 2.447 | 0 | -2.447 | 0 | | Camden | 0 | 0 | 0.815 | 0.980 | 0.165 | 0 | | City of London | 0 | 0.033 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Croydon | 0.530 | -0.251 | 0.630 | 0 | 0.630 | 0 | | Ealing | 5.140 | -4.592 | 2.243 | 2.200 | -0.043 | 0 | | Enfield | 9.607 | -1.457 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Greenwich | 0 | 0 | 0.318 | 0 | -0.318 | 0 | | Hackney | 0.314 | 0.366 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 0 | 0 | 0.056 | 0.018 | -0.038 | 0 | | Haringey | 0 | 0 | 0.270 | 0 | -0.270 | 0 | | Harrow | 1.070 | -1.070 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Havering | 1.816 | -1.816 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Hillingdon | 2.866 | -2.172 | 6.280 | 5.300 | -0.980 | 0 | | Hounslow | 7.274 | -4.478 | 0.201 | 0 | -0.201 | 0 | | Islington | 2.256 | -0.281 | 0.026 | 0.092 | 0.066 | 0 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 0.640 | -0.640 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Kingston upon Thames | 0 | 0 | 0.317 | 0 | -0.317 | 0 | | Lambeth | 0.292 | 4.120 | 0.043 | 0.052 | 0.009 | 0 | | Lewisham | 0 | 0.090 | 0.090 | 0.420 | 0 | -0.420 | | Merton | 0.772 | -0.597 | 0 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0 | | Newham | 0.461 | 3.032 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Redbridge | 0 | 0 | 1.817 | 0 | -1.817 | 0 | | Richmond upon Thames | 8.663 | -0.333 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Southwark | 0.423 | 0.915 | 0.158 | 0.066 | -0.092 | 0 | | Sutton | 0.683 | -0.683 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Tower Hamlets | 1.223 | -0.072 | 0.299 | 0.291 | -0.008 | 0 | | Waltham Forest | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Wandsworth | 0.020 | 0.291 | 0 | 0.019 | 0.019 | 0 | | Westminster | 0.120 | 0.120 | 0 | 0.120 | 0.120 | 0 | | London | 60.892 | 42.662 | -18.230 | 15.926 | 10.322 | -5.604 |

Source: London Development Database. All figures are in hectares.

Note that 7.200 hectares of the existing open space in Hounslow and 0.336 hectares in Tower Hamlets are considered as brownfield land but are included as they are within areas of protected open space.

### Table 12 Losses Of Protected Open Space in Planning Approvals 2008/09

| Borough | Green Belt (ha) | Metropolitan Open Land (ha) | Local Open Spaces and Other (ha) | Grand Total (ha) | |--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------------------|----------------------------------|------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 0 | 0 | 11.454 | 11.454 | | Barnet | 0 | 0 | 0.160 | 0.160 | | Bexley | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Brent | 0 | 0 | 0.945 | 0.945 | | Bromley | 1.057 | 0 | 0.210 | 1.267 | | Camden | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | City of London | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Croydon | 0 | 0 | 0.135 | 0.135 | | Ealing | 0 | 0 | 0.548 | 0.548 | | Enfield | 9.607 | 0 | 0 | 9.607 | | Greenwich | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Hackney | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Haringey | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Harrow | 0 | 0 | 1.070 | 1.070 | | Havering | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Hillingdon | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Hounslow | 7.200 | 0 | 0.074 | 7.274 | | Islington | 0 | 0 | 0.260 | 0.260 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Kingston upon Thames | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Lambeth | 0 | 0.100 | 0 | 0.100 | | Lewisham | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Merton | 0 | 0.113 | 0.659 | 0.772 | | Newham | 0 | 0 | 0.157 | 0.157 | | Redbridge | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Richmond upon Thames | 0 | 0.333 | 0 | 0.333 | | Southwark | 0 | 0 | 0.092 | 0.092 | | Sutton | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Tower Hamlets | 0 | 0.466 | 0.105 | 0.571 | | Waltham Forest | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Wandsworth | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Westminster | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | **London Total** | **17.864** | **1.012** | **15.869** | **34.745** |

Source: London Development Database. All figures are in hectares.

The biggest single loss of open space is for the Lymington Fields development in Barking and Dagenham, which will see the loss of just under 11.5 hectares of Locally Protected open space. The large loss of Green Belt in Enfield is at the site of a proposed new training facility for Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Much of the site will remain as open space, with new buildings resulting in a net loss of just under 1.5 hectares. The loss of 7.2 hectares of Green Belt in Hounslow is the result of the formalisation of existing uses at the Bedfont Trading Estate. Despite being in the Green Belt, the land was previously developed and the permission includes environmental improvements that will create 1.2 hectares of new public open space to compensate for the addition of new buildings to the existing brownfield site. | Progress | No. | Borough | Date | |----------------------------------------------|-----|--------------------------------|-------| | Completed an Open Space Strategy | 18 | Barking & Dagenham | 2003 | | | | Bexley | 2008 | | | | Camden | 2008 | | | | City | 2008 | | | | Croydon | 2005 | | | | Ealing | 2003 | | | | Hackney | 2008 | | | | Haringey | 2007 | | | | Havering | 2007 | | | | Islington | 2009 | | | | Lambeth | 2004 | | | | Lewisham | 2005 | | | | Merton | 2005 | | | | Richmond upon Thames | 2004 | | | | Southwark | 2006 | | | | Sutton | 2007 | | | | Tower Hamlets | 2006 | | | | Westminster | 2007 | | Open Space Strategy under Preparation / Draft| 8 | Brent | 2004 | | | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 2008 | | | | Harrow | 2006 | | | | Hounslow | 2008 | | | | Newham | 2008 | | | | Redbridge | 1997 | | | | Waltham Forest | 2006 | | | | Wandsworth | 2007 | | Other strategy in place | 7 | Barnet | 2004 | | | | Bromley | 1994 | | | | Enfield | 2005 | | | | Greenwich | 2005 | | | | Hillingdon | 2002 | | | | Kensington & Chelsea | 2006 | | | | Kingston upon Thames | 2008 |

Source: London Parks Benchmarking Group, Annual Comparison Project. Objective 2 - To make London a better city for people to live in

Key Performance Indicator 4 An increased supply of new homes

Target Completion of at least 30,500 new homes a year

Table 14 Number of net housing completions by borough 2008/09

| Borough | Conventional | Non self-contained | Vacancies returning to use | TOTAL | Target | Delivery (%) of Target | |-------------------------------|--------------|--------------------|----------------------------|-------|--------|------------------------| | Barnet | 1,015 | 0 | -53 | 962 | 2,055 | 47 | | Camden | 892 | 480 | -53 | 1,319 | 595 | 222 | | Enfield | 333 | 0 | 57 | 390 | 395 | 99 | | Hackney | 2,047 | 492 | -97 | 2,442 | 1,085 | 225 | | Haringey | 740 | 21 | 920 | 1,681 | 680 | 247 | | Islington | 2,270 | 257 | -99 | 2,428 | 1,160 | 209 | | Westminster | 721 | 13 | -730 | 4 | 680 | 1 | | NORTH SUB-TOTAL | 8,018 | 1,263 | -55 | 9,226 | 6,650 | 139 | | Barking and Dagenham | 387 | 116 | -62 | 441 | 1,190 | 37 | | City of London | 95 | 0 | -7 | 88 | 90 | 98 | | Havering | 648 | 0 | -65 | 583 | 535 | 109 | | Newham | 1,088 | 0 | 151 | 1,239 | 3,510 | 35 | | Redbridge | 623 | 0 | -117 | 506 | 905 | 56 | | Tower Hamlets | 2,887 | 269 | -351 | 2,805 | 3,150 | 89 | | Waltham Forest | 731 | -10 | 29 | 750 | 665 | 113 | | NORTH-EAST SUB-TOTAL | 6,459 | 375 | -422 | 6,412 | 10,045 | 64 | | Bexley | 222 | 0 | 31 | 253 | 345 | 73 | | Bromley | 488 | -9 | -71 | 408 | 485 | 84 | | Greenwich | 760 | 0 | 29 | 789 | 2,010 | 39 | | Lewisham | 923 | -7 | 23 | 939 | 975 | 96 | | Southwark | 1,047 | 103 | -115 | 1,035 | 1,630 | 63 | | SOUTH-EAST SUB-TOTAL | 3,440 | 87 | -103 | 3,424 | 5,445 | 63 | | Croydon | 1,528 | -13 | 446 | 1,961 | 1,100 | 178 | | Kingston upon Thames | 184 | 214 | -152 | 246 | 385 | 64 | | Lambeth | 1,095 | 8 | -307 | 796 | 1,100 | 72 | | Merton | 774 | 3 | -127 | 650 | 370 | 176 | | Richmond upon Thames | 350 | -6 | 27 | 371 | 270 | 137 | | Sutton | 467 | 0 | -34 | 433 | 345 | 126 | | Wandsworth | 1,581 | -14 | 34 | 1,601 | 745 | 215 | | SOUTH-WEST SUB-TOTAL | 5,979 | 192 | -113 | 6,058 | 4,315 | 141 | | Brent | 931 | 2 | 284 | 1,217 | 1,120 | 109 | | Ealing | 828 | -15 | 258 | 1,071 | 915 | 117 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 770 | -69 | 173 | 874 | 450 | 194 | | Harrow | 785 | -40 | 22 | 767 | 400 | 192 | | Hillingdon | 537 | 702 | -23 | 1,216 | 365 | 333 | | Hounslow | 453 | 8 | 87 | 548 | 445 | 123 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 102 | -35 | -568 | -501 | 350 | -143 | | WEST SUB-TOTAL | 4,406 | 553 | 233 | 5,192 | 4,045 | 128 | | TOTAL | 28,302 | 2,470 | -460 | 30,312| 30,500 | 99 | Sources: Conventional and Non-conventional supply from the London Development Database, Long Term Vacants from the Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix, 2007/08 and 2008/09, published by CLG

Note: ‘Vacants’ are private sector dwellings vacant in excess of 6 months.

Table 15 Net Conventional Housing Completion trends

| Year | Total housing unit completions | |--------|-------------------------------| | 2003/4 | 26,697 | | 2004/5 | 25,711 | | 2005/6 | 25,137 | | 2006/7 | 27,289 | | 2007/8 | 28,242 | | 2008/9 | 28,302 | | Total | 161,378 |

Sources: London Development Database

Table 16 Residential planning approvals 2008/09 (Net no. of dwellings)

| | 2000/1 | 2001/2 | 2002/3 | 2003/4 | 2004/5 | 2005/6 | 2006/7 | 2007/8 | 2008/9 | |--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------| | North | 6,893 | 5,738 | 10,142 | 8,316 | 11,014 | 14,274 | 14,002 | 11,231 | 8,204 | | North East | 5,786 | 5,600 | 8,615 | 8,012 | 16,653 | 13,959 | 8,720 | 36,063 | 15,219 | | South East | 5,701 | 4,805 | 7,838 | 15,568 | 9,187 | 5,716 | 13,434 | 13,759 | 7,698 | | South West | 6,552 | 7,287 | 7,260 | 7,975 | 8,174 | 9,361 | 13,198 | 10,402 | 9,117 | | West | 5,416 | 5,713 | 6,796 | 4,906 | 10,460 | 9,378 | 8,307 | 8,684 | 5,645 | | TOTAL | 30,348 | 29,143 | 40,651 | 44,777 | 55,488 | 52,688 | 57,661 | 80,139 | 45,883 |

Source: London Development Database.

The table shows net conventional approvals of residential units. Differences with previously published data are due to the continuous updating of the LDD system.

Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessible Housing

The London Development Database began collecting data on whether new dwellings are designed to meet Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessibility standards on permissions granted from 01/04/2008 onwards. The data is proving difficult for some boroughs to collect, which may explain the significant variation between boroughs on their delivery of Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessible Homes on planning permissions approved during 2008/09.

For more information on the Lifetime Homes standard see http://www.lifetimehomes.org.uk/index.php. These standards have been reflected in the Mayor’s draft Housing Design Guide to help designers more easily address inclusive design standards at the outset of the design process, and specifically for development on LDA owned land and for homes which will receive public subsidy after April 2011. The GLA has also supported Urban Design London in the provision of Inclusive Design Training courses for planners and urban designers. For more information see http://www.urbandesignlondon.com/

For more information on the key features of wheelchair accessible housing see the GLA Best Practice Guide at http://legacy.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/docs/bpg-wheelchair-acc-housing.pdf, for full details see Habinteg’s Wheelchair Housing Design Guide see http://www.habinteg.org.uk/main.cfm?type=WCHDG. Table 17 Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessible homes approved during 2008/09 (all development types)

| Borough | Units approved | Lifetime homes approved | % Lifetime Homes | Wheelchair accessible homes approved | % Wheelchair Accessible homes approved | |--------------------------|----------------|-------------------------|------------------|--------------------------------------|---------------------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 2,067 | 1,890 | 91% | 101 | 5% | | Barnet | 4,496 | 1,661 | 37% | 98 | 2% | | Bexley | 491 | 203 | 41% | 16 | 3% | | Brent | 1,231 | 442 | 36% | 92 | 7% | | Bromley | 1,146 | 275 | 24% | 18 | 2% | | Camden | 930 | 591 | 64% | 76 | 8% | | City of London | 106 | 2 | 2% | 2 | 2% | | Croydon | 2,815 | 1,886 | 67% | 199 | 7% | | Ealing | 1,104 | 203 | 18% | 28 | 3% | | Enfield | 1,021 | 465 | 46% | 108 | 11% | | Greenwich | 980 | 797 | 81% | 86 | 9% | | Hackney | 2,065 | 1,383 | 67% | 368 | 18% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 477 | 17 | 4% | 4 | 1% | | Haringey | 866 | 225 | 26% | 24 | 3% | | Harrow | 469 | 356 | 76% | 102 | 22% | | Havering | 629 | 341 | 54% | 106 | 17% | | Hillingdon | 1526 | 1,247 | 82% | 387 | 25% | | Hounslow | 1458 | 372 | 26% | 13 | 1% | | Islington | 2,128 | 1,515 | 71% | 154 | 7% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 745 | 438 | 59% | 36 | 5% | | Kingston upon Thames | 754 | 603 | 80% | 41 | 5% | | Lambeth | 3,647 | 2 | 0% | 0 | 0% | | Lewisham | 2,274 | 1,177 | 52% | 84 | 4% | | Merton | 744 | 23 | 3% | 15 | 2% | | Newham | 6,339 | 5,914 | 93% | 578 | 9% | | Redbridge | 236 | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | | Richmond upon Thames | 602 | 41 | 7% | 35 | 6% | | Southwark | 3,580 | 2,383 | 67% | 350 | 10% | | Sutton | 998 | 174 | 17% | 73 | 7% | | Tower Hamlets | 6,687 | 1,100 | 16% | 148 | 2% | | Waltham Forest | 531 | 239 | 45% | 16 | 3% | | Wandsworth | 2,100 | 532 | 25% | 73 | 3% | | Westminster | 1,045 | 129 | 12% | 20 | 2% | | All Boroughs | 56,287 | 26,626 | 47% | 3,451 | 6% |

Source: London Development Database Table 18 Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessible Homes approved during 2008/09 (New Build residential developments)

| Borough | New Build units approved | Lifetime homes from New Build | % Lifetime Homes from New Build | Wheelchair accessible homes from New Build | % Wheelchair Accessible from New Build | |--------------------------|--------------------------|-------------------------------|--------------------------------|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 973 | 948 | 97% | 69 | 7% | | Barnet | 4,069 | 1,636 | 40% | 78 | 2% | | Bexley | 437 | 203 | 46% | 16 | 4% | | Brent | 874 | 317 | 36% | 79 | 9% | | Bromley | 825 | 256 | 31% | 16 | 2% | | Camden | 443 | 390 | 90% | 50 | 11% | | City of London | 0 | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | | Croydon | 2,172 | 1,761 | 81% | 177 | 8% | | Ealing | 479 | 61 | 15% | 12 | 3% | | Enfield | 721 | 461 | 64% | 106 | 15% | | Greenwich | 822 | 784 | 95% | 79 | 10% | | Hackney | 1,666 | 1,343 | 81% | 340 | 21% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 45 | 11 | 24% | 4 | 9% | | Haringey | 571 | 225 | 39% | 24 | 4% | | Harrow | 288 | 266 | 98% | 69 | 24% | | Havering | 537 | 341 | 64% | 106 | 20% | | Hillingdon | 1,430 | 1,204 | 84% | 344 | 24% | | Hounslow | 477 | 276 | 58% | 5 | 1% | | Islington | 1,340 | 1,120 | 85% | 138 | 10% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 464 | 425 | 92% | 36 | 8% | | Kingston upon Thames | 626 | 581 | 93% | 41 | 7% | | Lambeth | 3,002 | 2 | 0% | 0 | 0% | | Lewisham | 1,822 | 1,117 | 61% | 83 | 5% | | Merton | 401 | 15 | 4% | 15 | 4% | | Newham | 5,200 | 4,939 | 95% | 481 | 9% | | Redbridge | 170 | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | | Richmond upon Thames | 316 | 17 | 5% | 11 | 3% | | Southwark | 3,318 | 2376 | 72% | 350 | 11% | | Sutton | 899 | 172 | 19% | 71 | 8% | | Tower Hamlets | 5,796 | 1,099 | 19% | 147 | 3% | | Waltham Forest | 204 | 174 | 85% | 11 | 5% | | Wandsworth | 1,673 | 525 | 31% | 66 | 4% | | Westminster | 369 | 96 | 26% | 14 | 4% | | All Boroughs | 42,429 | 22,856 | 54% | 2,991 | 7% |

Source: London Development Database

Note: All figures in Tables 17 and 18 are calculated at ‘scheme level’. This means that some units may be counted twice in cases where a revision to part of a scheme, usually in the form of details or reserved matters, is approved in the same year as the original permission. Key Performance Indicator 5 An increased supply of affordable homes

Target Completion of 50 per cent of new homes as affordable homes each year 2004–2016.

Engagement with boroughs and other stakeholders has underscored the need to ensure that the London Housing Strategy (LHS) investment target for affordable housing should not be confused with the affordable housing target set out in the London Plan. The LHS investment target includes new build and acquisitions, but the London Plan target is measured in terms of net conventional supply: that is, supply from new developments or conversions, adjusted to take account of demolitions and other losses. The LHS/investment figure is therefore generally higher than the planning target. Monitoring achievement of the London Plan target is based on output from the London Development Database while monitoring achievement of the LHS investment targets is based on a more broadly based source provided by CLG (see separate Housing Monitor Appendix 8).

The London Plan definition should be used for calculating affordable housing targets for development planning purposes including planning targets which show the proportion of housing supply that is affordable.

Table 19 shows that net affordable housing output from conventional completions has reached its highest point since the establishment of the GLA. Output has increased from just under 10,400 in 2007/8 to almost 10,600 in 2008/9, equivalent to 37.4% of overall conventional provision (28,302). In 2007/8 36.7% of all conventional homes were affordable.

Because local affordable housing output can vary considerably from year to year, it is more meaningful to test individual borough performance against a longer term average. Figure 3 shows average affordable housing output as a proportion of overall conventional housing provision over the three years to 2008/09. During this period affordable housing output averaged 35.8% of total provision. Two boroughs (Brent and Hammersmith and Fulham) achieved an output more than 50% above the average proportion (53%) and two boroughs (City of London and Lewisham) were less than 50% below the average (18%). During 2006/07, Lewisham recorded a net loss of affordable units. This is in part to do with the way LDD allocates the losses of units in phased development schemes to the year in which the final unit is completed. However Sutton saw an even more substantial loss in 2006/07 (118 units to Lewisham’s 81), but achieve a 3 year output of 23% compared to Lewisham’s 18%. The City of London saw no affordable units completed within the borough during the three year period 2006/07-2008/09. | Borough | Total net affordable conventional completions 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 3-year total | Affordable as % of total net conventional completions (all tenures) 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 3-Year Average | |-------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|---------|---------|--------------|-------------------------------------------------|---------|---------|----------------| | Barnet | 27 | 56 | 409 | 492 | 6 | 6 | 40 | 21 | | Camden | 219 | 115 | 414 | 748 | 42 | 24 | 46 | 40 | | Enfield | 225 | 444 | 73 | 742 | 32 | 46 | 22 | 37 | | Hackney | 468 | 713 | 915 | 2,096 | 41 | 45 | 45 | 44 | | Haringey | 312 | 211 | 339 | 862 | 35 | 39 | 46 | 40 | | Islington | 602 | 1,117 | 398 | 2,117 | 33 | 59 | 18 | 35 | | Westminster | 23 | 371 | 231 | 625 | 4 | 50 | 32 | 30 | | North Sub-total | 1,876 | 3,027 | 2,779 | 7,682 | 30 | 42 | 35 | 36 | | Barking & Dagenham | 135 | 215 | 157 | 507 | 33 | 26 | 41 | 31 | | City of London | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Havering | 178 | 125 | 301 | 604 | 21 | 26 | 46 | 30 | | Newham | 263 | 388 | 556 | 1,207 | 35 | 41 | 51 | 43 | | Redbridge | 310 | 54 | 117 | 481 | 30 | 9 | 19 | 21 | | Tower Hamlets | 823 | 787 | 1,505 | 3,115 | 33 | 34 | 52 | 41 | | Waltham Forest | 229 | 236 | 298 | 763 | 31 | 29 | 41 | 33 | | North East Sub-total | 1,938 | 1,805 | 2,934 | 6,677 | 31 | 30 | 45 | 35 | | Bexley | 115 | 134 | 50 | 299 | 48 | 50 | 23 | 41 | | Bromley | 142 | 267 | 177 | 586 | 16 | 38 | 36 | 28 | | Greenwich | 515 | 282 | 239 | 1,036 | 43 | 35 | 31 | 37 | | Lewisham | -81 | 233 | 228 | 380 | -22 | 27 | 25 | 18 | | Southwark | 735 | 576 | 319 | 1,630 | 38 | 44 | 30 | 38 | | South East Sub-total | 1,426 | 1,492 | 1,013 | 3,931 | 31 | 38 | 29 | 33 | | Croydon | 471 | 625 | 416 | 1,512 | 46 | 43 | 27 | 38 | | Kingston upon Thames | 54 | 109 | 0 | 163 | 17 | 30 | 0 | 19 | | Lambeth | 233 | 348 | 564 | 1,145 | 21 | 28 | 52 | 33 | | Merton | 145 | 244 | 265 | 654 | 37 | 37 | 34 | 36 | | Richmond upon Thames | 39 | 112 | 135 | 286 | 15 | 27 | 39 | 28 | | Sutton | -118 | 188 | 243 | 313 | -43 | 30 | 52 | 23 | | Wandsworth | 241 | 309 | 481 | 1,031 | 17 | 30 | 30 | 25 | | South West Sub-total | 1,065 | 1,935 | 2,104 | 5,104 | 22 | 33 | 35 | 31 | | Brent | 637 | 423 | 485 | 1,545 | 69 | 55 | 52 | 59 | | Ealing | 629 | 412 | 309 | 1,350 | 47 | 29 | 37 | 38 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 458 | 237 | 315 | 1,010 | 74 | 46 | 70 | 64 | | Harrow | 152 | 116 | 228 | 496 | 25 | 31 | 30 | 28 | | Hillingdon | 46 | 117 | 177 | 340 | 24 | 27 | 23 | 24 | | Hounslow | 572 | 793 | 214 | 1,579 | 42 | 47 | 40 | 44 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 64 | 13 | 30 | 107 | 38 | 10 | 29 | 27 | | West Sub-total | 2,558 | 2,111 | 1,758 | 6,427 | 49 | 40 | 40 | 43 | | London | 8,863 | 10,370 | 10,588 | 29,821 | 32 | 37 | 37 | 36 |

Source of Table 19: London Development Database In the draft replacement London Plan the Mayor has signalled his intention to replace the 50% target in the 2008 Plan with a numeric target of 13,200 affordable homes per year. The Mayor intends to work with boroughs to enable them to set local targets to make their contribution towards achieving this taking into account local and strategic needs. These new targets may be expressed by borough in numeric or percentage terms as appropriate to local circumstances. However, while this new approach to target setting will be of increasing materiality as the replacement Plan proceeds to final publication, the benchmark for statutory planning monitoring purposes will remain the 50% target in the 2008 Plan. Table 20 shows how boroughs’ own planning targets currently relate to the 2008 50% strategic target and how they are achieving their local targets.

### Table 20 Affordable housing policy by borough

| Borough | Borough Policy Target (or practice) as at 2002 | Adopted borough policy target as at December 2009 | Out-turn 2006/7 to 2008/9 | |--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 25% | 50% | 31% | | Barnet | 30% | 50% | 21% | | Bexley | 25% | 35% | 41% | | Brent | 30-50% | 50% | 59% | | Bromley | 20% | 35% | 28% | | Camden | 50% proposed | 50% | 40% | | City of London | None | 50% | 0% | | Croydon | 40% | 40%-50% | 38% | | Ealing | 50% | 50% | 38% | | Enfield | 25% | LP\* | 37% | | Greenwich | 35% | 35% minimum (50% on greenfield/readily developable former employment land) | 37% | | Hackney | 25% | 50% | 44% | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 65% proposed | 50% | 64% | | Haringey | 30% | 50% | 40% | | Harrow | 30% | 50% | 28% | | Havering | None | 50% | 30% | | Hillingdon | 25% | LP\* | 24% | | Hounslow | 50% | LP\* | 44% | | Islington | 25% | 50% | 35% | | Kensington & Chelsea | 33% | 33% | 27% | | Kingston upon Thames | 50% | 30%-50%, 50% on schemes of 25 units or more | 19% | | Lambeth | 35-50% | 40% (50% with grant) | 33% | | Lewisham | 30% | 35% | 18% | | Merton | 30% | LP\* | 36% | | Newham | 25% | LP\* | 43% | | Redbridge | 25% | 50% | 21% | | Richmond upon Thames | 40% | 40% | 28% | | Southwark | 25% | 35% or 40% in CAZ, 50% overall | 38% | | Sutton | 25% | 50% | 23% | | Tower Hamlets | 25-33% | 50% overall, 35% on individual privately owned sites | 41% | | Waltham Forest | 40% | 50% | 33% | | Wandsworth | None | 50% | 25% | | Westminster | 50%, 30% in CAZ | 30% | |

Note: This table has been changed. The figures for Camden, Westminster and Waltham Forest were taken from their draft core strategies rather than their adopted UDPs. The adopted policy figures have now been entered (03/03/2010). Key Performance Indicator 5a Reducing Health Inequalities

Target By 2026, reducing by at least 10% the gap between life expectancy at birth in Areas for Regeneration and the average in London.

This is a new indicator as a result of the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations) 2008. It has been found that data to support this indicator are not directly available. Indicators 5a and 5b are being reviewed as part of the process of producing the Replacement London Plan, and it is hoped that an alternative indicator, which can be more easily monitored, will be used in future.

For AMRs 5 and 6, proxy data has been used. The proxy data takes ONS annual life expectancy for males and females on a borough-by-borough basis. The regeneration wards have been approximated by weighting the borough life expectancies by the populations resident in regeneration wards in each borough. This means that the resulting indicators are strongly influenced by the life expectancies in the six boroughs with the highest populations in regeneration wards namely, Hackney, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Islington, Southwark and Haringey. These six boroughs account for 68% of the population within regeneration wards. It is recognized that this approach will underestimate the gap, as the regeneration wards are generally expected to demonstrate lower life expectancy.

Table 21 Life expectancy at Birth (2000-2002 and 2006-2008)

| | 2000-2002 | 2006-2008 | |----------------|-----------|-----------| | | Males | Females | Males | Females | | 6 Borough Average | 73.68 | 79.32 | 75.99 | 81.33 | | London Average | 75.77 | 80.50 | 78.20 | 82.38 | | Gap | 2.09 | 1.18 | 2.21 | 1.06 |

Source: ONS mid-2008 estimates.

There has been a consistent improvement in the life expectancy at birth in both the six boroughs with the most areas for regeneration and in London as a whole. While the gap has dropped slightly for women between 2000-02 and 2006-08, it has increased for males. It is important to note that a death is a ‘semi-random’ event and therefore this indicator will not necessarily show a monotonic change due to the relatively small numbers of events involved. Trends will become more easily discernable over time.

Key Performance Indicator 5b Reducing Health Inequalities

Target By 2015, reducing by at least 10% the gap between the age standardized death rate from coronary heart disease per 100,000 people in Areas for Regeneration and the average in London.

This indicator was introduced as a result of the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations) 2008. It is now realised that the data to support this indicator is not directly available and, as with KPI 5a above, this indicator is being reviewed in the Consultation Draft of the Replacement London Plan.

For the purposes of AMRs 5 and 6, the indicator has been altered to show the Standardised Mortality Ratio (SMR) – using Ischaemic deaths in London by age and gender as the basis of the calculation. The SMR compares actual total deaths to deaths expected if the death rates in the standard population (in this case London) apply to the population of the regeneration areas. (disaggregated by 5-year age groups and gender). SMR is expressed as a percentage of the expected deaths. The figures used for death rates relate to 2006 – the latest year for which information is available and the population is the GLA 2007 Round PLP Low populations for 2006.

Table 22 Standardised Mortality Rates (Ischaemic deaths)

| | SMR (rate per 100,000 population) | |--------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | | 2007 | 2008 | | Regeneration Areas Male | 126 | 126 | | Regeneration Areas Female | 107 | 106 | | Regeneration Areas Male & Female | 118 | 118 | | London Male and Female | 100 | 100 |

Source: ONS mid-2008 estimates. Objective 3 - To make London a more prosperous city

Key Performance Indicator 6 Increasing sustainability and social inclusion by increasing the proportion of London residents working in jobs in London over the plan period (to 2026).

Target Net increase in the proportion of London residents working in London.

Comprehensive statistics on this target are produced for the Census, which is carried out every ten years. The last census was carried out in 2001. Data to update this table will not be available until the data from the 2011 census has been analysed.

Table 23 Workers in London 1991 and 2001

| Year | Total workers | Living in London | Living outside London | % of workers living in London | |------|---------------|------------------|-----------------------|------------------------------| | 1991 | 3,349,350 | 2,676,620 | 672,730 | 79.9% | | 2001 | 3,805,655 | 3,083,116 | 722,539 | 81% |

Table 24 Londoners Out-commuting 1991 and 2001

| Year | Workers out commuting | % change in out commuting | |------|-----------------------|---------------------------| | 1991 | 149,820 | - | | 2001 | 236,018 | 57.5% increase |

Source: 1991, 2001 Census

Table 25 Londoners Out-commuting 2001-2008

| Year | Workers out commuting | Yearly % change in out commuting | |------|-----------------------|---------------------------------| | 2000 | 257,000 | - | | 2001 | 254,000 | -1.5% | | 2002 | 264,000 | +4.0% | | 2003 | 285,000 | +8.0% | | 2004 | 275,000 | -3.6% | | 2005 | 281,000 | +2.5% | | 2006 | 331,000 | +17.5% | | 2007 | 321,000 | -3.0% | | 2008 | 323,000 | +0.7% | | Total change 2000-2008 | +25.8% |

Source: Labour Force Survey - note this data is based on a sample survey rather than full census survey. (See: Travel in London Report 1, Table 12.3) Key Performance Indicator 7 Ensure that there is sufficient development capacity in the office market.

Target The stock of permissions (measured as net lettable) should be at least three times the average rate of starts over the preceding three years.

The ratio of permissions to average three years starts at end 2009 was 10:1.

The ratio has been increasing since 2007, as starts have turned down sharply since the curtailed mini-construction boom of 2005-2007. Meanwhile the stock of permissions for offices has been maintained, and marginally enhanced by 5% during the period 2007-2009. The ratio of permissions to starts doubled in two years over this period.

Table 26 Ratio of planning permissions to three-year average starts in central London

| Year | Ratio of planning permissions to three year average starts | |------|----------------------------------------------------------| | 2003 | 6.4:1 | | 2004 | 12.0:1 | | 2005 | 8.0:1 | | 2006 | 8.4:1 | | 2007 | 4.8:1 | | 2008 | 7.0:1 | | 2009 | 10.0:1 |

Source: Ramidus Consulting, EGi London Offices

As anticipated in AMR5, the volume of starts in central London in 2009 fell by 45% to 0.2 million sq metres net in just 35 schemes. This is the lowest total in the modern era, matching the previous record low of 0.2 million sq ft metres in 1992 during the previous economic recession.

Figure 4 Office starts and year-end permissions in central London 1985-2009

Source: Ramidus Consulting, EGi London Offices

______________________________________________________________________

1 Central London is defined here as Camden, City of London, City of Westminster, Hackney, Hammersmith & Fulham, Islington, Kensington & Chelsea, Lambeth, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Wandsworth Of the 203,000 sq metres started in 2009, 71,000 sq metres (35%) was located in seven schemes in the City market. The largest of these were the redevelopment of Cannon Street Station, EC4; New Court, EC4, and 40 Gracechurch Street, EC3. 51,000 sq metres (25%) was located in 13 schemes in the West End, including phases of the redevelopment of Regent Street, W1; the redevelopment of Elizabeth Garret Anderson Hospital, and 1 The Piazza, WC2. The largest individual start, however, was The Shard, London Bridge, SE1, which at 53,385 sq metres (plus hotel and residential) accounted for 26% of starts by floorspace. 22,205 sq ft of the tower, which at 306 metres will be the tallest building in western Europe when completed in 2012.

The planning pipeline in central London increased in 2009 by 3.5% to 4.2 million sq metres in 418 schemes. Five permitted schemes were each over 100,000 sq metres (net lettable) and together accounted for 29% of all permitted development. The Big Five schemes are Wood Wharf, E14; King’s Cross, NW1; North Quay (Canary Wharf), E14; Heron Quays (Canary Wharf), E14 and The Pinnacle, EC2. By borough, planning consents are concentrated in LB Tower Hamlets and the City of London (each with just over 1.2 million sq m) and accounting together for 57% of potential supply. The two boroughs which encompass the West End market had much lower levels of potential supply, with LB Camden at 500,000 sq m (mainly in King’s Cross) and the City of Westminster at 470,000 sq metres. The Big Four boroughs, therefore, accounted for 82% of permitted central London office development.

Both market data and sentiment changed rapidly towards the end of 2009 in the London office market. Commentators suggest that the weight of money pouring into institutional funds from retail investors led to a growth in capital values from Q3 09 according to Investment Property Databank (IPD). The occupational market also strengthened in Q4 09 such that availability rates began to fall after two years of continuous increase from Q3 07. Some agent commentators, such as Knight Frank, predicted a return to rental growth for 2010, as shortages of new, refurbished and Grade A space begin to develop.

If this were a “normal” cycle, commentators suggest that developers might be expected to be starting schemes in 2010 to meet potential shortages. Although the recession officially ended in Q4 09, there is little conventional debt funding available from the banking system for office development. Commentators suggest that what few starts are expected in 2010 are likely to be led by equity-rich developers, the biggest Real Estate Investment Trusts and funding institutions in joint ventures with property companies.

AMR7 will examine the supply and demand balance at the end of 2010 and test whether the development industry was constrained in its response to the short term needs of the occupational market.

**Key Performance Indicator 8**

Direction of economic and population growth to follow the indicative sub-regional allocations and fulfil the priority to east London

**Target**

Development in Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification for each sub-region measured against the Chapter 5 indicative figures in the London Plan.

Significant progress – described in detail in Appendix 3 – has been made in progressing development in many of the London Plan Opportunity Areas. Objective 4 - To promote social inclusion and tackle deprivation and discrimination

Key Performance Indicator 9 Increased employment opportunities for those suffering from disadvantage in the employment market

Target Age specific unemployment rates for black and minority ethnic groups to be no higher than for the white population by 2016, 50 per cent reduction of the difference by 2011.

Table 27 Age specific unemployment rates for White and BAME groups, Greater London

| Age Group | All persons | White groups | BAME groups | Ratio | |-----------------|-------------|--------------|-------------|-------| | | Unemployed | Rate (%) | Unemployed | Rate (%) | Unemployed | Rate (%) | BAME/White | | All working age | 273,000 | 7.1 | 125,000 | 4.8 | 148,000 | 11.8 | 2.5 | | Age 16-24 | 98,000 | 19.0 | 40,000 | 12.6 | 58,000 | 29.2 | 2.3 | | Age 25-44 | 123,000 | 5.4 | 57,000 | 3.8 | 65,000 | 8.8 | 2.3 | | Age 45-59/64 | 53,000 | 4.9 | 28,000 | 3.6 | 25,000 | 8.0 | 2.2 |

Source: Annual Population Survey 2008

Notes: The APS is a sample survey, so all estimates are subject to a degree of sampling variability. The definition of unemployment used here is the ILO measure (International Labour Organisation) which relates to people not in work, who had actively looked for work in the last four weeks and who were available to start work in the next two weeks. Rates express the number unemployed as a proportion of the labour force (i.e. the economically active population). BAME (Black, Asian and minority ethnic) groups refers to all ethnic groups other than White groups.

Londoners from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups are more than twice as likely as those from White groups to be unemployed. The overall ratio of White unemployment to BAME unemployment remained unchanged from the previous year. The gap in rates persists across different age groups, with unemployment most pronounced in the 16-24 age group.

The absolute number of people of working-age who are unemployed rose 12,000 from 261,000 in 2007 to 273,000 in 2008 accounting for a rise of just 0.2 percentage points in the unemployment rate. Unemployment in white groups aged 16-24 has fallen 1.5 percentage points between 2007 and 2008, compared with an increase of 3.1 percentage points in BAME groups of the same age, driving an overall increase of 0.6 percentage points. This pattern is reversed for the 25-44 age group and rates for the 45-59/64 age group have shown no change since 2007.

While data presented here relate to aggregations of minority ethnic groups, it is fully recognised that within the BAME population there is huge variation in unemployment rates. 2001 Census data shows that rates ranged from 5.9 per cent for Indian Londoners up to 20.5 per cent among Bangladeshi Londoners. Rates were also high for Black Londoners (12.3-17.6 per cent). Key Performance Indicator 10 Increased employment opportunities for those suffering from disadvantage in the employment market

Target Percentage of lone parents dependant on income support to be no higher than the UK average by 2016, 50 per cent reduction of the difference by 2011.

Table 28 Lone parents on Income Support as % of all lone parent families

| Quarter | Greater London | As % of lone parent families | Great Britain | As % of lone parent families | Difference in percentage points (London-GB) | |---------|----------------|-----------------------------|---------------|-----------------------------|------------------------------------------| | May 2001 | 168,400 | 59.2 | 900,320 | 50.8 | 8.5 | | May 2002 | 166,840 | 57.4 | 870,850 | 47.7 | 9.7 | | May 2003 | 166,630 | 56.1 | 855,710 | 45.7 | 10.3 | | May 2004 | 165,120 | 54.4 | 823,180 | 43.4 | 11.0 | | May 2005 | 163,620 | 52.4 | 789,270 | 40.8 | 11.6 | | May 2006 | 162,770 | 50.8 | 774,780 | 39.3 | 11.4 | | May 2007 | 160,450 | 49.0 | 765,530 | 38.4 | 10.6 | | May 2008 | 152,520 | 45.7 | 738,580 | 36.6 | 9.1 | | May 2009 | 141,720 | 42.4 | 720,420 | 34.7 | 7.6 |

Sources: GLA calculations based on data from Department of Work and Pensions & Office for National Statistics

In May 2009 lone parent families in London continued to be more likely to claim Income Support relative to the national average. The London rate fell seven per cent from May 2008 compared with two per cent in Great Britain. This has driven a narrowing of the gap in claimant rates between London and GB from just over ten percentage points in 2008 to 7.6 percent in 2009.

Key Performance Indicator 11a Improving the provision of social infrastructure and related services.

Target An increase in the provision of childcare places per 1,000 under fives, particularly in Areas of Regeneration

This target was added to the London Plan in 2008 and replaced the previous Key Performance indicator 11 along with current indicator 11b. However the data has since ceased to be produced in a comparable format. Each Borough is now required to do an assessment of the sufficiency of childcare, but a full review is only required every three years and there is no uniform format in which the data is returned, thus making it inappropriate to be used as an indicator. The GLA has therefore decided to draw up a new indicator for the replacement London Plan based on available data.

Key Performance Indicator 11b Improving the provision of social infrastructure and related services.

Target An improvement in the percentage of pupils obtaining five or more GCSEs at grades A\*-C in areas of Regeneration relative to the LEA as a whole. This is a new target which was added to the London Plan in 2008 and replaced the previous Key Performance indicator 11 along with indicator 11a.

Table 29 GCSE A\*-C Grade Passes

| Borough | 2005 % 5+ A\*-C grades All wards | 2008 % 5+ A\*-C grades All wards | 2005 % 5+ A\*-C grades Regeneration wards | 2008 % 5+ A\*-C grades Regeneration wards | % Change 2005 to 2008 All wards | % Change 2005 to 2008 Regeneration wards | |--------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|----------------------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 50.2 | 49.0 | 48.0 | 47.4 | -1.2 | -0.5 | | Barnet | 62.3 | 65.3 | 57.6 | 60.5 | 3.0 | 2.9 | | Bexley | 57.4 | 56.7 | 41.9 | 39.9 | -0.7 | -2.0 | | Brent | 55.0 | 56.6 | 49.5 | 53.1 | 1.5 | 3.7 | | Bromley | 65.9 | 67.5 | 49.6 | 56.0 | 1.7 | 6.3 | | Camden | 46.7 | 53.9 | 45.4 | 52.9 | 7.1 | 7.5 | | Croydon | 53.7 | 52.8 | 47.9 | 47.2 | -0.9 | -0.7 | | Ealing | 57.3 | 59.1 | 53.2 | 54.6 | 1.8 | 1.5 | | Enfield | 50.9 | 54.5 | 45.3 | 45.8 | 3.6 | 0.5 | | Greenwich | 46.7 | 49.8 | 44.6 | 47.8 | 3.1 | 3.2 | | Hackney | 44.2 | 46.9 | 44.2 | 46.9 | 2.7 | 2.7 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 48.7 | 47.7 | 48.8 | 46.9 | -1.0 | -1.9 | | Haringey | 47.8 | 46.2 | 43.6 | 40.8 | -1.6 | -2.9 | | Harrow | 59.6 | 62.4 | 53.8 | 51.4 | 2.8 | -2.4 | | Havering | 59.6 | 62.6 | 48.6 | 57.5 | 3.0 | 8.9 | | Hillingdon | 52.1 | 53.5 | 40.3 | 43.8 | 1.5 | 3.5 | | Hounslow | 53.0 | 56.4 | 44.9 | 50.7 | 3.4 | 5.8 | | Islington | 44.4 | 48.2 | 44.4 | 48.2 | 3.7 | 3.7 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 50.2 | 52.7 | 49.2 | 51.0 | 2.5 | 1.9 | | Kingston-upon-Thames | 64.7 | 66.3 | 41.2 | 47.3 | 1.6 | 6.0 | | Lambeth | 46.7 | 47.6 | 46.3 | 47.5 | 0.9 | 1.2 | | Lewisham | 49.7 | 52.5 | 47.7 | 49.1 | 2.8 | 1.4 | | Newham | 51.2 | 51.1 | 51.2 | 51.1 | -0.1 | -0.1 | | Rebridge | 67.3 | 67.7 | 58.4 | 60.1 | 0.5 | 1.7 | | Southwark | 45.5 | 50.7 | 44.4 | 49.2 | 5.2 | 4.8 | | Sutton | 58.2 | 63.3 | 54.3 | 55.2 | 5.1 | 0.9 | | Tower Hamlets | 48.9 | 48.2 | 48.9 | 48.2 | -0.8 | -0.8 | | Waltham Forest | 50.2 | 56.9 | 48.1 | 53.3 | 6.7 | 5.2 | | Wandsworth | 53.5 | 48.9 | 46.6 | 38.6 | -4.6 | -8.0 | | Westminster | 42.4 | 50.9 | 39.0 | 47.8 | 8.6 | 8.9 | | All Boroughs | **54.0** | **56.0** | **47.7** | **49.5** | **2.0** | **1.8** |

Source for Table 29: DMAG Education: English National Pupil Datasets

The regeneration wards used have changed since AMR 5 so the data have been recalculated to reflect this. Data have been taken from 2005 and 2008 to give an indication of change. The initial indication on this measure is that educational achievement is rising in the regeneration wards at a slightly slower rate than in London as a whole. Objective 5 - To improve London’s accessibility

Key Performance Indicator 12 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys

Target Use of public transport per head grows faster than use of the private car per head.

Table 30 Public and private transport indexes

| Year | Public Transport index | Private Transport Index | |------|------------------------|-------------------------| | 2001 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | 2002 | 103.2 | 99.6 | | 2003 | 108.9 | 98.3 | | 2004 | 114.5 | 95.9 | | 2005 | 113.3 | 92.8 | | 2006 | 116.6 | 93.5 | | 2007 | 123.2 | 94.5 | | 2008 | 127.3 | 91.1 |

Source: Transport for London

Note: figures have been revised from previous AMRs. The private transport index is derived from the traffic series for car and motorcycle movements in London. The index has been revised to take account of revisions to the TfL traffic series (see KPI13) and additional survey data on car occupancy.

The indices are derived from the time series of numbers of journey stages per head compiled for the Travel in London Report number 2 (TfL, March 2010). This includes all travel to, from or within Greater London, including travel by commuters and visitors. For consistency the population estimates include in-commuters and visitors (derived from the Labour Force Survey and the International Passenger Survey, respectively).

The results show a 27% increase in public transport journey stages per head between 2001 and 2008, compared with a 9% decrease in car journeys per head. 2008 saw a continuing drop in the use of the car and a rise in the use of public transport, which has increased steadily apart from a dip in 2005 that has been attributed to the impact of the London bombings in July 2005.

Key Performance Indicator 13 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys.

Target From 2001-2011, 15 per cent reduction in traffic in the congestion charging zone, zero traffic growth in inner London, and traffic growth in outer London reduced to no more than 5 per cent.

Transport for London estimates annual road traffic (vehicle kilometres) in Greater London using data from its own traffic counts and those undertaken for the Department of Transport’s National Road Traffic Estimates. TfL’s analysis showed that the DfT’s methodology did not reflect traffic trends in London since 1999 with sufficient accuracy, particularly for minor roads. TfL has produced a series of estimates that are closer to the trends indicated by its own data. Estimates for this London Plan Annual Monitoring Report have been revised from previous editions to be consistent with the TfL traffic series. The TfL series was first published in Travel in London Report number 1 (April 2009) for years to 2007, and will be updated to 2008 in the next edition of Travel in London (Report number 2, to be published March 2010). London Plan Policy 3C.16 ‘Tackling congestion and reducing traffic’ sets out targets for reductions in weekday traffic growth for different areas of London.

Monitoring by Transport for London within the area of the central London Congestion Charging Zone has shown that levels of traffic (for vehicles of four or more wheels) fell by 15 per cent between 2002 and 2003 and continued to decline to a level of up to 20 percent below 2002 by 2005. Available indicators of traffic circulating within the Zone during charging hours show broadly stable traffic levels in 2006 and 2007 compared with the previous year, followed by a substantial decline of 8 percent in 2008. This decline affected all vehicle types except lorries and buses and coaches. The greatest fall was observed in the vehicle kilometres by powered two-wheelers, at 17 percent followed by cars at 14 percent.

In inner London outside Central London annual traffic declined by 3 percent between 2007 and 2008 following a 1 percent decrease in the previous year. Traffic in 2008 in inner London was 8 percent below that recorded 2001. In outer London, traffic has remained almost constant since 2001, with marginal changes of less than 1 per cent (in either direction) in most years. Outer London traffic fell by 2 percent in 2008 (following an increase of similar magnitude in 2007) and remained 1 percent below its 2001 level.

Table 31 Traffic (billion vehicle kilometres, all vehicles) 2001–2008: Inner and Outer London

| | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | |----------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | **All roads:** | | | | | | | | | | | Greater London | 32.5 | 32.6 | 32.5 | 32.5 | 32.0 | 31.4 | 31.8 | 32.0 | 31.4 | | Inner (exc City and Westminster) | 9.0 | 9.1 | 8.9 | 8.9 | 8.6 | 8.5 | 8.7 | 8.6 | 8.4 | | Outer London | 22.2 | 22.1 | 22.3 | 22.5 | 22.3 | 21.8 | 21.9 | 22.3 | 21.9 | | **Index (2001=100):**| | | | | | | | | | | Greater London | 100.0| 99.7 | 99.7 | 98.2 | 96.5 | 97.5 | 98.3 | 96.3 | | | Inner (exc City and Westminster) | 100.0| 97.8 | 97.1 | 93.5 | 93.1 | 95.6 | 94.3 | 91.6 | | | Outer London | 100.0| 100.6| 101.4| 100.8| 98.5 | 99.1 | 100.8| 99.1 | | | **Major roads only:**| | | | | | | | | | | Greater London | 20.7 | 20.8 | 20.7 | 20.8 | 20.6 | 19.9 | 20.1 | 20.5 | 20.2 | | Inner (exc City and Westminster) | 5.5 | 5.6 | 5.4 | 5.4 | 5.2 | 5.0 | 5.2 | 5.3 | 5.2 | | Outer London | 14.3 | 14.4 | 14.5 | 14.6 | 14.6 | 14.1 | 14.2 | 14.5 | 14.2 | | **Index (2001=100):**| | | | | | | | | | | Greater London | 100.0| 99.5 | 99.6 | 98.7 | 95.3 | 96.6 | 98.4 | 96.7 | | | Inner (exc City and Westminster) | 100.0| 96.5 | 96.3 | 92.4 | 89.9 | 93.5 | 94.4 | 92.3 | | | Outer London | 100.0| 100.9| 101.5| 101.8| 97.9 | 98.5 | 100.7| 99.2 | |

**Source:** Transport for London Key Performance Indicator 14 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys

Target A five per cent increase in passengers and freight transported on the Blue Ribbon Network from 2001-2011.

Table 32 Passengers on the River Thames

| Year | Number of Passengers | % increase on previous year | |--------------------|----------------------|----------------------------| | April 2000 – March 2001 | 1,573,830 | - | | April 2001 – March 2002 | 2,011,736 | 28% | | April 2002 – March 2003 | 2,030,385 | 1% | | April 2003 – March 2004 | 2,123,820 | 4.6% | | April 2004 – March 2005 | 2,343,280 | 10.3% | | April 2005 – March 2006 | 2,373,350 | 1% | | April 2006 – March 2007 | 2,746,700 | 15.7% | | April 2007 – March 2008 | 3,078,300 | 12.1% | | April 2008 – March 2009 | 3,892,700 | 26.5% |

Source for table 33: TfL London River Services

Note 1 Figures are for passenger journeys on boat operators using TfL London River Services piers and the Thames Clipper Savoy (London Eye from November 2007) to Woolwich Arsenal service. This excludes a number of other services working from independent piers. Figures also include passengers on charter boats. Ticket sales count both single and return tickets as one journey on all services except Thames Clippers.

The table shows that the number of passengers on the Thames is steadily increasing over the baseline situation in 2001. The overall picture is of more than doubling river passengers since 2001 (a 147% increase). Following the events of 7 July 2005, passenger numbers on leisure services fell significantly, but subsequently recovered to previous levels. Passenger numbers on the riverbus services have shown significant growth since July 2005. In November 2007, Thames Clippers riverbus service was expanded to run between Waterloo (BA London Eye) and the O2 at a 20 minute frequency throughout the day and every 30 minutes in the late evening. Strong growth in riverbus and leisure services continued in 2008/9 due to the low value of the pound attracting visitors to London and a successful programme of events at the O2 boosting Thames Clippers patronage. It is anticipated that the number of passengers carried on the Thames will continue to show strong growth.

Table 33 Cargo trade on the River Thames

| Year | Tonnes of Cargo | % increase on previous year | |------|-----------------|----------------------------| | 2001 | 10,757,000 | - | | 2002 | 9,806,000 | 9% decrease | | 2003 | 9,236,000 | 6% decrease | | 2004 | 8,743,000 | 5% decrease | | 2005 | 9,288,000 | 6% increase | | 2006 | 9,337,000 | 0.5% increase | | 2007 | 8,642,000 | 7% decrease | | 2008 | 9,312,000 | 8% increase |

Source: Port of London Authority.

For cargo, the main changes were a substantial increase in the movement of construction and demolition waste. Looking forward, the Port of London Authority remains positive that cargo volumes will increase in the medium term, notwithstanding the economic downturn, which is impacting on the transhipment of aggregates, due to a number of major construction projects intending to use the river. These include Crossrail, the Thames Tideway Sewer and continued Olympics and Stratford City related development.

**Key Performance Indicator 15** Increase in public transport capacity

**Target** 50 per cent increase in public transport capacity between 2001 – 2021, with interim increases to reflect Table 6A.2

In AMR5 it was stated that the target 5% increase in capacity between 2001 and 2006 had been met with a 6% increase in capacity. In October 2009 TfL published its latest Business Plan covering the period to 2017/18. TfL also published the draft of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy for public consultation, which set out an indicative list of transport schemes including funded schemes and also schemes which will require further funding or which fall outside the timeframe of TfL’s current Business Plan. It was noted in the Transport Strategy that the funded package of investment in London’s transport system will increase public transport capacity in the three-hour AM peak period by over 30% in the period from 2006. The funded package of investment is planned to be delivered over the period to 2020 and includes the following expansions to public transport capacity:

- An increase in peak capacity of more than 30 per cent across the Underground network when the upgrade programme is complete in 2020.
- Construction of Crossrail, with services planned to be introduced from 2017 and fully operational by 2018.
- Infrastructure improvements and new carriages for trains on the DLR, increasing capacity by 50 per cent by 2010.
- Extensions of the East London Line.
- Extra carriages and infrastructure improvements on the North London Railway, which will increase capacity by 50 per cent. The North London Railway will also connect with the new East London line extension from Dalston to West Croydon, Crystal Palace and Clapham Junction.

TfL supported the development of the Department for Transport’s High Level Output Statement (HLOS), providing more trains, more carriages and longer platforms. HLOS forms the basis of Network Rail’s Control Period 4 planned investments covering the period to 2013/14. Beyond 2013/14, TfL continues to work with the Department for Transport to assess the longer-term options to improve further both the passenger and freight rail network in London.

**Key Performance Indicator 16** Increase in public transport capacity

**Target** Regular assessment of the adequacy of transport capacity to support development in opportunity and intensification areas.

An initial assessment of the adequacy of public transport capacity at each of the Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification was carried out to inform the sub-regional development frameworks (SRDFs), published in 2005. In the Mayor’s Planning for a Better London, published in July 2008, it was stated that the current model of sub-regional working will be reviewed and, in view of this, work on the Sub Regional Implementation Frameworks has been suspended. TfL announced in 2008 that they wish to work with London Boroughs and sub-regional partnerships to take forward a sub- regional approach to transport analysis. TfL are developing improved transport models to support sub-regional transport planning which, when completed in 2010, will also support assessment of the adequacy of transport provision at opportunity and intensification areas.

Working with key stakeholders such as London Boroughs is an important part of the sub-regional approach and there has been extensive engagement to take this forward. Initially the analysis is focusing on understanding the challenges, which includes the role of transport in supporting opportunity and intensification areas. This will be developed in 2010 in discussion with key stakeholders.

**Key Performance Indicator 17**

Increase in the number of jobs located in areas with high PTAL values

**Target**

Maintain at least 50% of B1 development in PTAL zones 5-6 and at least 90% of B2 and B8 development in Zones 0-2.

This target aims to show that high density employment generators such as offices are mainly located in areas with good access to public transport, while major developments in low density uses such as Industry and Storage and Distribution are in suitable out of town centre locations. It was revised for the London Plan 2008 and now formally represents the proxy data that was used in previous AMRs.

The London Development Database has been used in combination with a GIS system to generate a matrix of types of employment development permitted within three groupings of public transport accessibility. This is measured using the Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) score generated by Transport for London.

The data shows that over 77% of B1 developments are in areas with a high PTAL score, well above the 50% target. While the majority of general industry (B2) and storage and distribution (B8) uses are in the low PTAL range, the percentage for each is less than the 90% target. A new self-storage facility on Streatham High Road on a site previously in light industrial use is the largest of several self-storage facilities in areas of medium or high accessibility that have led to only 75% of B8 approvals being in areas with a low PTAL score. The B2 schemes in areas with high PTAL scores are mainly on sites previously in B2 or B8 use so are not considered to be at odds with the policy.

| Accessibility (PTAL Group) | Employment floorspace by land use class 2007/8 | |---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------| | | B1 m² | B1 % | B2 m² | B2 % | B8 m² | B8 % | | Low (0 to 2) | 169,021 | 11.68% | 73,580 | 87.60% | 159,848 | 74.54% | | Medium (3 to 4) | 162,784 | 11.25% | 9,410 | 11.20% | 43,633 | 20.35% | | High (5 to 6) | 1,115,339 | 77.07% | 1,001 | 1.19% | 10,953 | 5.11% | | Totals | 1,447,144 | 83,991 | 214,434 |

**Source:** London Development Database - B1, B2 and B8 approvals. Only permissions with 1,000m² or more in a particular use class are recorded on LDD. They are “gross” figures that do not take account of the existing use. PTAL is measured from the location of the site marker, which is generally located in the centre of the site. This means that for large sites, such as the Stratford City development, a low PTAL rating will be given despite the large variance across different parts of the site.

PTAL – Public Transport Accessibility Level B1 – Offices, light industry, research and development uses. B2 – General Industrial uses B8 – Storage and distribution uses including warehouses. Objective 6 - To make London a more attractive, well-designed and green city

Key Performance Indicator 18 Protection of biodiversity habitat

Target No net loss of designated Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation over the plan period.

Losses in Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation approved during 2008/09 were mostly minor, amounting to less than a hectare in total across London. In addition, the permissions often include work on surrounding areas to offset these losses with improvements to existing habitat areas. These cases highlight some issues relating to appropriate uses within protected habitats, and also the importance of keeping boundaries accurate and up to date. The GLA hope to work closely with Green Spaces Information for London (GIGL) over the coming year to ensure that spatial boundaries are kept up to date and reflect the situation as it is on the ground.

Table 35 Changes in protected habitat due to new development

| Borough | Protected area affected by dev (ha) | Comment | Net Change (ha) | |---------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------| | Brent | 0.103 | Housing development adjacent to St Mary’s School includes an area of cemetery of Borough Grade 2 importance | -0.103 | | Bromley | 0.034 | Construction of a new house on a small plot between an existing house and a main road. The site is overlaps a Site of Metropolitan Importance, but was already in use as a residential garden. | -0.034 | | Ealing | 0.130 | Creation of a Multi-Use Games Area on open grassland within a Site of Local Importance. | -0.103 | | Islington | 0.215 | The Islington part of the Kings Cross redevelopment site includes this area of railway embankment of Borough Grade 1 importance. The proposals include the creation of a new habitat area. Although the area is likely to be smaller, there is hoped to be an improvement in quality. | Estimated -0.065 | | Lambeth | 0.100 | A road re-alignment scheme will lead to the loss of 0.1ha of Brockwell Park, a site of Borough Grade 1 importance. The scheme will include tree and shrub planting to improve the adjacent open space. | -0.100 | | Merton | 0.029 | Extension to an existing dwelling that will encroach on an adjacent area of Borough Grade 2 importance. | -0.029 | | Southwark | 0.043 | Redevelopment of existing business site for residential includes a small area designated as of Local Importance to provide access to the site. | -0.043 | | Tower Hamlets | 0.130 | Creation of a BMX and skate park within Mile End Park is not considered to be detrimental to the existing site. | No change | | Borough | Protected area affected by dev (ha) | Comment | Net Change (ha) | |-----------------|-------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------| | Tower Hamlets | 0.336 | This site was identified for development in the Canary Wharf Masterplan and foundations have already been laid for a previous scheme. The site encroaches into the docks, which are a site of Borough Grade 2 importance but this scheme will not extend further than the existing foundations. | -0.336 | | London Total | 1.120 | | 0.813 |

Source: London Development Database

**Key Performance Indicator 19** Increase in municipal waste recycled or composted

**Target** At least 35 per cent by 2010. At least 45 per cent by 2015.

Table 36 shows that London’s municipal recycling rate for 2008/09 was 25%. This represents a continuation of the increasing trend seen over the past eight years. Table 37 indicates London’s household recycling rate also increased from 25% in 2007/08 to 29% in 2008/09, although London has a lower household recycling rate than any other English Region.

On a positive note, the total amount of municipal waste has continued to decrease. This decline has accelerated to a 4% annual decrease from 4.2 million tonnes in 2007/08 to 4.0 million tonnes in 2008/09.

**Table 36 London’s municipal waste recycling rate 2000/01 – 2008/09**

| Year | Household Recycling Rate | |--------|--------------------------| | 2000/1 | 8% | | 2001/2 | 8% | | 2002/3 | 9% | | 2003/4 | 11% | | 2004/5 | 15% | | 2005/6 | 18% | | 2006/7 | 20% | | 2007/8 | 22% | | 2008/9 | 25% |

Source: Defra Waste Statistics, 2009 [http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/wastats](http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/wastats) Table 37 Regional household recycling rates 2000/01 to 2008/09 (percentage)

| Region | 2000/1 | 2001/2 | 2002/03 | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/6 | 2006/7 | 2007/8 | 2008/9 | |---------------------|--------|--------|---------|---------|---------|--------|--------|--------|--------| | North East | 4 | 5 | 7 | 12 | 15 | 21 | 26 | 28 | 31 | | North West | 8 | 9 | 11 | 14 | 19 | 24 | 29 | 33 | 37 | | Yorkshire & Humber | 7 | 9 | 11 | 15 | 19 | 22 | 27 | 31 | 34 | | East Midlands | 13 | 14 | 15 | 19 | 26 | 32 | 36 | 42 | 45 | | West Midlands | 9 | 10 | 13 | 16 | 20 | 25 | 29 | 33 | 37 | | East | 15 | 17 | 19 | 23 | 30 | 34 | 38 | 41 | 45 | | London | 9 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 18 | 21 | 23 | 26 | 29 | | South East | 16 | 18 | 20 | 23 | 26 | 29 | 33 | 36 | 38 | | South West | 15 | 17 | 19 | 21 | 27 | 31 | 37 | 40 | 42 | | England | 11 | 13 | 15 | 18 | 23 | 27 | 31 | 35 | 38 |

Source: Defra Waste Statistics, 2009, refer: www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/wastats

Table 38 Total Municipal Waste in London

| Waste from: | 2001/2 | 2002/3 | 2003/4 | 2004/5 | 2005/6 | 2006/7 | 2007/8 | 2008/9 | |------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------| | Regular household collection | 2,262 | 2,216 | 2,201 | 2,081 | 2,112 | 2,111 | 2,013 | 1,784 | | Other household sources | 310 | 298 | 274 | 306 | 277 | 256 | 247 | 236 | | Civic amenity sites | 519 | 497 | 411 | 328 | 250 | 246 | 230 | 190 | | Household recycling | 317 | 367 | 445 | 581 | 687 | 776 | 851 | 911 | | Total household | 3,408 | 3,379 | 3,331 | 3,297 | 3,326 | 3,390 | 3,342 | 3,122 | | Non household sources (excl. recycling) | 996 | 1,024 | 962 | 1,011 | 810 | 761 | 734 | 750 | | Non household recycling | 33 | 43 | 49 | 62 | 76 | 67 | 74 | 83 | | Total municipal waste | 4,438 | 4,446 | 4,342 | 4,370 | 4,213 | 4,218 | 4,149 | 3,955 |

Source: Defra Waste Statistics, 2009, http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/wastats

Key Performance Indicator 20 Increase in household waste recycled or composted

Target Achievement of quantified requirement for waste treatment facilities

Following the publication of Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for sustainable waste management, the London Plan was reviewed and each London borough was apportioned an amount of waste for which significant land must be identified for the management of that waste. The sum total of waste for all boroughs equates to 85% self sufficiency for London. Individual borough apportionment targets are listed in Table 40. The Mayor is currently consulting on updated waste arising and apportionment figures in the Consultation Draft Replacement of the London Plan.

The Waste Development Plan Documents (DPD) and Cores Strategies commented on by the Planning Unit, to ensure the apportionment target is being adhered by London boroughs, are listed in Table 39. | Planning document | Stage of development | Strategic Waste Authority or Grouping | Constituent Boroughs | |-------------------|----------------------|--------------------------------------|----------------------| | Waste Development Plan Document | Proposed submission draft | East London Waste Authority | Barking and Dagenham Havering Newham Redbridge | | | Preferred options | North London Waste Authority | Barnet Camden Enfield Hackney Haringey Islington Waltham Forest | | | Stage two consultation | South London Waste Partnership | Croydon Kingston Merton Sutton | | | Issues and options | West London Waste Authority | Brent Ealing Harrow Hillingdon Hounslow Richmond | | Core Strategy | Draft Issues and options Preferred strategy Proposed submission Draft Preferred options Submission Further consultations Publication draft | n/a | City of London Kensington & Chelsea Lambeth Merton Southwark Tower Hamlets Westminster | Table 40 Waste to be managed in London apportioned by borough

| London borough | 2010 MSW C/I | 2010 total | 2015 MSW C/I | 2015 total | 2020 MSW C/I | 2020 total | |----------------|--------------|------------|--------------|------------|--------------|------------| | | | | | | | | | London's municipal solid waste & commercial/industrial waste to be apportioned | | | | | | | | Barking/Dag | 145 | 357 | 502 | 236 | 429 | 666 | 274 | 508 | 782 | | Barnet | 61 | 150 | 210 | 59 | 180 | 279 | 115 | 213 | 327 | | Bexley | 131 | 323 | 454 | 214 | 388 | 602 | 248 | 459 | 707 | | Brent | 82 | 202 | 284 | 134 | 243 | 377 | 155 | 287 | 442 | | Bromley | 71 | 174 | 245 | 115 | 209 | 325 | 134 | 248 | 382 | | Camden | 58 | 143 | 201 | 95 | 172 | 266 | 110 | 203 | 313 | | City | 29 | 71 | 100 | 36 | 64 | 100 | 35 | 65 | 100 | | Croydon | 73 | 179 | 252 | 119 | 215 | 334 | 138 | 255 | 393 | | Ealing | 104 | 257 | 361 | 170 | 308 | 478 | 197 | 365 | 562 | | Enfield | 87 | 215 | 302 | 142 | 258 | 400 | 165 | 306 | 470 | | Greenwich | 96 | 237 | 334 | 157 | 285 | 442 | 182 | 337 | 519 | | Hackney | 59 | 146 | 205 | 97 | 175 | 272 | 112 | 207 | 319 | | Ham & Fulham | 71 | 176 | 247 | 116 | 211 | 327 | 135 | 250 | 385 | | Harrow | 52 | 128 | 180 | 85 | 154 | 239 | 98 | 182 | 280 | | Havering | 96 | 235 | 331 | 156 | 283 | 438 | 180 | 335 | 515 | | Hillingdon | 87 | 215 | 303 | 142 | 258 | 401 | 165 | 306 | 471 | | Hounslow | 85 | 208 | 293 | 138 | 250 | 388 | 160 | 296 | 455 | | Islington | 58 | 143 | 201 | 94 | 171 | 266 | 109 | 203 | 312 | | Kent & Chel | 58 | 143 | 201 | 95 | 172 | 266 | 110 | 203 | 313 | | Kingston | 47 | 117 | 164 | 77 | 140 | 218 | 90 | 166 | 256 | | Lambeth | 64 | 158 | 222 | 105 | 190 | 294 | 121 | 225 | 346 | | Lewisham | 60 | 148 | 208 | 98 | 177 | 275 | 113 | 210 | 323 | | Merton | 69 | 171 | 240 | 113 | 205 | 318 | 131 | 243 | 373 | | Newham | 118 | 290 | 407 | 192 | 348 | 539 | 222 | 412 | 634 | | Redbridge | 45 | 110 | 154 | 73 | 132 | 204 | 84 | 156 | 240 | | Richmond | 58 | 142 | 200 | 94 | 170 | 264 | 109 | 202 | 311 | | Southwark | 70 | 173 | 244 | 115 | 208 | 323 | 133 | 246 | 379 | | Sutton | 57 | 141 | 199 | 94 | 170 | 263 | 108 | 201 | 310 | | Tower Hamns | 90 | 221 | 311 | 146 | 266 | 412 | 170 | 314 | 484 | | Waltham For | 57 | 141 | 199 | 94 | 170 | 264 | 106 | 201 | 310 | | Wandsworth | 91 | 224 | 314 | 148 | 269 | 417 | 171 | 318 | 489 | | Westminster | 36 | 89 | 125 | 59 | 107 | 166 | 68 | 127 | 195 |

Note: Boroughs preparing joint waste DPDs may wish to collaborate by pooling their apportionment requirements. Provided the aggregated total apportionment is met, it is not necessary for boroughs to meet both MSW and C/I apportionment figures individually.

Source: Jacobs UK Ltd (July 2007) for CLA.

All figures are thousand tonnes per annum. Key Performance Indicator 21: Increased regional self-sufficiency for waste

Target 75 per cent (15 million tonnes) of London’s waste treated or disposed of within London by 2010

GLA estimates suggest that in 2008/09 this target was already met, with 78 per cent of London’s waste currently managed within London.

The Greater London Authority (GLA) Act 2007 enabled the establishment of the London Waste and Recycling Board. The board’s objectives are to promote and encourage:

- the production of less waste;
- an increase in the proportion of waste reused and recycled; and
- the use of methods of collection, treatment and disposal that are more beneficial to the environment

The board has an investment fund of up to £84 million over four years. This has been supplemented by a further £18 million in match funding from the European Regional Development fund, through the JESSICA scheme. This money will stimulate further increases in waste management capacity within London.

Key Performance Indicator 22 Reduce carbon dioxide emissions

Target Reduce emissions to: 15% below 1990 levels by 2010. 20% below 1990 levels by 2015 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 30% below 1990 levels by 2025

Historical emissions data have been refined compared to previous monitoring reports in light of new data. The most recent measurement of London’s CO2 emissions is the 2008 London Energy and Greenhouse Gas Inventory (LEGGI). The LEGGI attributes CO2 emissions to three sectors in London, based on either where the use of fuel occurred or, in the case of electricity, where it was consumed. These sectors are homes, workplaces and transport.

| CO₂ emissions [Million tonnes per year] | 1990 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2008 | % change | |----------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|----------| | Homes | 15.84| 17.54| 17.79| 17.95| 18.11| 17.87| 17.51| 17.07| 15.93| 1% | | Workplaces | 19.74| 25.04| 22.60| 21.98| 21.37| 22.17| 22.30| 21.51| 20.12| 2% | | Transport | 9.52 | 7.73 | 8.47 | 9.00 | 9.53 | 8.80 | 8.88 | 8.88 | 8.66 | -9% | | Total | **45.10** | **50.31** | **48.86** | **48.93** | **49.01** | **48.84** | **48.68** | **47.45** | **44.72** | **-1%** |

Source: 2008 London Energy and Greenhouse Gas Inventory (LEGGI).

Between 1990 and 2000 London’s CO2 emissions increased by 12 per cent, from 45.1 MtCO2 to 50.3 MtCO2. Most of this growth was in the workplaces sector as a result of a decade of steady growth in economic activity. Emissions from the homes sector also increased due to the growing population of London. From 2000 to 2006 the population of London increased by a further ten per cent. However the city’s emissions dropped by six per cent to 47.45 MtCO2 per year in 2006. This is due to a number of factors, primarily the lower carbon content of the national electricity supply resulting from lower coal use in the generation mix, and the growing proportion of London’s economy accounted for by the service industry, which is less CO2-intensive than manufacturing. In 2008 emissions were 44.72 MtCO2 in total, which is a 1% reduction relative to 1990 levels.

Carbon emission reduction targets have been raised to reflect the Mayor’s greater ambition to reduce emissions. The 2025 target has doubled from 30% to a 60% reduction, meaning in 2025 London will emit no more that 18.04 MtCO2. The London Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy includes policies indicating how London will move from its current 1% reduction on 1990 to those reductions required in the targets.

**Key Performance Indicator 23** Increase in energy generated from renewable sources

**Target** Production of 945GWh of energy from renewable sources by 2010 including at least six large wind turbines.

No new data has been collected since the last AMR was published so the text and table below has been retained from AMR 5. The GLA is to commission a study into energy production from renewable sources in Spring 2010 with results to be published later in the year.

The baseline position at 2001 was that London had capacity for 460Gwh of renewable energy generation. This comprised; 414 GWh electricity generation and 46 GWh heat generation. More recent figures for 2007, see Table 42 below indicate 500 GWh electricity and 50 GWh of heat generation. Whilst there are a number of schemes under development at present, it seems clear that the target of 945GWh by 2010 will be missed. Table 42 Energy produced in London per annum from renewable sources

| Technology | Output Electricity (MWh) | Output Heat (MWh) | Capacity Installed (MW) | Capacity Installed (MW) | |-----------------------------|--------------------------|-------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------| | PV \<50kWe | 330 | 3,086 | 4.101 | | | PV >50kWe | 90 | | 0.114 | | | Solar heating | 3.040 | 4,305 - 14,985 | | 10.683 - 27.464\* | | Biomass | 3,975 | | | 0.2 | | Biodegradable fraction of MSW incineration | 250,000 | 302,610 | 64 | | | Sewage Sludge Incineration | 44,500 | 47,071 | 17.3 | | | Small/Micro Hydro | 44 | | | | | Landfill Gas | 64,000 | 119,358 | 18.182 | | | Sewage Gas | 49,000 | 21,102 - 42,500 | 30,600 | 6.76 | | Wind \<50kWe | 0.2 | 235 | 0.083 | | | Wind >50kWe | 9,465 | | 3.6 | | | Commercial and Domestic Heat Pumps | 150,300 | 200,418 | 180 | 0.073 | | Total excluding MSW incineration | 150,300 | 200,418 | 46,300 | 39,063 - 49,744 | | Total including MSW incineration | 414,300 | 503,207 | 46,300 | 39,063 - 49,744 |

- London estimate (from national figures) for solar heating installed as an output of government funding schemes \*\* Municipal solid waste

Sources: London Renewable Energy Capacity Study (April draft). SEA/RENUE, 2007 (unpublished). London Wind & Biomass Study, Summary Report: Feasibility of the Potential for Stand Alone Wind and Biomass Plants in London (and supporting reports). SEA/RENUE, 2007

Key Performance Indicator 24 Ensure a sustainable approach to flood management.

Target No net loss of functional flood plain within referable applications.

The Environment Agency has confirmed that it is not aware of any development that has resulted in a net loss of functional flood plain (as defined by PPS25) over the past year (April 2008 to March 2009).

Functional flood plain is defined in PPS25 as Zone 3b. This is land where water has to flow or be stored in times of flood and would flood with an annual probability of 1 in 20 (5%) or greater in any year, or is designed to flood in an extreme (0.1%) flood, or at another probability to be agreed between the Local Planning Authority (LPA) and the Environment Agency. However, as the majority of London is defended, only a very small area of functional flood plain exists within London. This is mainly associated with fluvial flood risk on the tributaries of the River Thames. In addition, PPS25 limits development in this zone to water-compatible uses and some essential infrastructure so loss of functional flood plain is unlikely. The Environment Agency publishes details of applications where it has objected on flood risk grounds annually. More information can be found at [http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/33582.aspx](http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/33582.aspx).

This target has been removed from the Consultation Draft of the London Plan as it is recognised not to be useful.

### Table 43 Progress of Boroughs preparing Strategic Flood Risk Appraisals (September 2009)

| Borough | Level 1 Progress | Level 2 Progress | |-------------------------------|------------------|------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | Complete | Complete | | Barnet | Complete | Ongoing for Colindale AAP | | Bexley | Final draft level 1 | Not started | | Brent | Complete | Complete | | Bromley | Complete | Completed | | Camden | Complete | Ongoing | | City of London | Complete | Ongoing | | Croydon | Complete | Complete | | Ealing | Complete | Unclear if needed| | Enfield | Complete | Ongoing | | Greenwich | First draft | Not started | | Hackney | Complete | Being commissioned| | Hammersmith & Fulham | Final draft | Not started | | Haringey | Complete | Ongoing | | Harrow | Complete | Ongoing | | Havering | Complete | Complete | | Hillingdon | Complete | Unclear if needed| | Hounslow | Complete | Complete | | Islington | Complete | Unclear if needed| | Kensington and Chelsea | Ongoing | Not started | | Kingston upon Thames | Complete | Complete | | Lambeth | Complete | Complete | | Lewisham | Complete | Not started | | Merton | Complete | Ongoing | | Newham | Ongoing | Ongoing | | Redbridge | Complete | Complete | | Richmond upon Thames | Complete | Not needed | | Southwark | Complete | Complete | | Sutton | Complete | Complete | | Tower Hamlets | Complete | Complete | | Waltham Forest | Complete | Ongoing | | Wandsworth | Complete | Complete | | Westminster | Ongoing | Ongoing |

**Source:** Environment Agency

The Greater London Authority completed its [Regional Flood Risk Appraisal](http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/33582.aspx) in October 2009.

Government policy on development and flood risk is laid out in [Planning Policy Statement 25](http://www.planningpolicystatement25.gov.uk/). Broadly, Level 1 and 2 SFRAs can be defined as follows: A Level 1 SFRA provides information on flood risk, taking climate change into account, that allows the LPA to understand the risk across its area, provides the information needed to apply the sequential approach, informs sustainability appraisals, land allocations, development control policies and emergency planning and identifies the level of detail required for site specific FRAs.

A Level 2 SFRA considers the detailed nature of the flood hazard that facilitates application of the Sequential and Exception tests, allows a sequential approach to site allocation to be adopted within a flood zone and allows the policies and practices required to ensure that development in such areas satisfies the requirements of the Exception Test, to be identified for insertion into the LDD.

As all boroughs have now either started or completed SFRAs where they are required, this table will not be included in AMR7.

**Key Performance Indicator 25** Protecting and improving London’s heritage and public realm

**Target** Reduction in the proportion of buildings at risk as a percentage of the total number of listed buildings in London.

| Table 44 | Proportion of Listed Building entries at Risk in London | |----------|--------------------------------------------------------| | | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | | Total Number of Listed Buildings | 18,274 | 18,316 | 18,348 | 18,390 | 18,461 | 18,479 | | Number of Listed Buildings At Risk | 563 | 556 | 532 | 516 | 487 | 486 | | Proportion at Risk | 3.08% | 3.03% | 2.89% | 2.80% | 2.63% | 2.63% |

**Source:** English Heritage

The Number of Listed Building and the number At Risk exclude Scheduled Ancient Monuments and cemeteries and churchyards.

The percentage of Listed Buildings At Risk remains the same as last year, although the total number of listed buildings has risen by 18 and the number at risk has dropped by one, thus continuing the downward trend of the last few years.

More details of the work English Heritage are undertaking in London can be found in their document *Heritage At Risk 2009*. Page 5 provides a more detailed table which includes Scheduled Monuments and Registered Parks and Gardens in addition to the Grade I and II\* listed buildings and Grade II listed buildings that are included in the table above.

One important development that has occurred in the last year is that English Heritage has started to monitor Conservation Areas at risk. Conservation Areas serve a vital role in London, helping to preserve the character of the capital’s unique urban character. Based on a survey of 486 of the 955 conservation areas in London, a total of 17% are considered to be “at risk”. Conservation areas are considered to be at risk if, in the relevant local authority’s assessment, the quality of the area has deteriorated over the last three years or is likely to do so over the next three. Further information, including a comprehensive search facility of sites on the register can be found on the Heritage at Risk website: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.19074 Appendix 2 – Contextual Indicators

Chapter 6 of the London Plan indicated a number of contextual indicators relating to London’s development, economy, environment, social and health status. The main part of the Annual Monitoring Report sets the overall context for London. There is also a huge amount of data available from both the GLA and other sources. The list of references and links below should enable anyone researching these subjects access to the most up to date data.

Please note that the GLA’s website is about to undergo major structural changes so it is likely that the various london.gov.uk links will become obsolete. However, improvements to the design of the website should make navigating the site easier than it is at present.

Regular Briefings from the GLA Data Management and Analysis Group By mid-November 2009, the following briefings and updates had been published by the GLA’s Data Management and Analysis Group.

| Briefings | Reference | Briefing Name | Month of publication | |-----------|-----------|----------------|----------------------| | 2009-01 | 2009-01 | Claimant Count Model 2009: Technical Note | Mar | | 2009-02 | 2009-02 | GLA 2008 Round Demographic Projections | Mar | | 2009-03 | 2009-03 | Greater London Demographic Review 2007 | Mar | | 2009-04 | 2009-04 | Census Information Note CIN 2009-1 | Mar | | 2009-05 | 2009-05 | Census Information Note CIN 2009-2 | Jun | | 2009-06 | 2009-06 | 2001 Census Consortium and Information Scheme | Jun | | 2009-07 | 2009-07 | 2009 European election results for London | Jul | | 2009-08 | 2009-08 | GLA 2008 Round Ethnic Group Population Projections | Aug | | 2009-09 | 2009-09 | Demography Team Workplan 2009/10 | Sep | | 2009-10 | 2009-10 | Education Team Workplan 2009/10 | Sep | | 2009-11 | 2009-11 | Social Exclusion Team Workplan 2009/10 | Sep | | 2009-12 | 2009-12 | Urban Audit III: London and Other Large European Cities | Sep |

| Updates | Reference | Title | Month of publication | |---------|-----------|-------|----------------------| | 01-2009 | 01-2009 | Migration Indicators: February 2009 | Feb | | 02-2009 | 02-2009 | Population by Country of Birth and Nationality | Feb | | 03-2009 | 03-2009 | Unemployment in London: March 2009 | Mar | | 04-2009 | 04-2009 | CLG 2006-based Household Projections | Mar | | 05-2009 | 05-2009 | Social Trends 39 – Key points from a London perspective | Apr | | 06-2009 | 06-2009 | HBAI 2007/08 | May | | 07-2009 | 07-2009 | Births and Deaths 2008 | Jun | | 08-2009 | 08-2009 | MYE 2008 | Aug | | 09-2009 | 09-2009 | Unemployment in London: July 2009 | Aug | | 10-2009 | 10-2009 | Demographic Change Statistics: August 2009 | Sep | | 11-2009 | 11-2009 | ONS mid-2007 Ethnic Group Population Estimates | Oct | | 12-2009 | 12-2009 | ONS mid-2007 Short-term Migrant Flows | Oct | A full list of DMAG Briefings is available to via the GLA’s website at: http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/publications/factsandfigures.jsp

**London Development Database** For more information on the London Development database either Email the LDD Team or phone 0207 983 4650. The LDD public page can be found at http://ldd.london.gov.uk/LDD/LDD/welcome.do

**GLA Economics reports** These are still available at http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/economic_unit/ For the latest news the Mayor’s Business and Economy section can be found at http://www.london.gov.uk/landing-page/business-economy

**London Sustainable Development Commission** http://www.londonsdc.org/

**London Energy Partnership** Full details can be found on the website http://www.lep.org.uk/

**Other data sources**

**Waste** The Mayor’s Draft Municipal Waste Management Strategy can be found at http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/waste/index.jsp DEFRA produces Municipal Waste Management statistics covering the previous financial year http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/wastats/bulletin09.htm More up to date London specific data is available on the Capital Waste Facts website http://www.capitalwastefacts.com/

**Waterways** The London Rivers Action Plan can be found at: http://www.therrc.co.uk/lrap.php

**Transport data** The latest information on The Mayor’s work on transport can be found at: http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/transport Office for National Statistics provides some useful data on London http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nscl.asp?ID=8036 Transport for London performance statistics can be found at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/investorrelations/4481.aspx Department for Children, Schools and Families Various data and studies on education and skills can be found at the following site: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/index.htm Details of the indicators for “Attainment and Outcomes” can be found at: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/trends/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showCategory&cid=5

Ofsted Links to a number of national reports on education provision can be found at: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research

Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs Various data and studies on the environment can be found on the DEFRA site http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/index.htm

Department for Communities and Local Government CLG publishes a number of statistics relating to planning at http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/245410 Details of National Neighbourhood Renewal Floor Targets can also be found on the CLG website. http://www.fti.communities.gov.uk/

## Appendix 3 - Schedule of Progress on Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification

| Name of Location | Progress at Feb 2010 | |------------------|----------------------| | **North London** | | | King’s Cross | Planning permission has been granted within both LB Camden and Islington. | | Paddington | Mostly developed although Hammersmith & City Line upgrade dependent on further development. Span 4 of Paddington Station currently being refurbished and Crossrail Station application to be determined | | Euston | LB Camden produced a draft planning brief. A Steering group has been set up by Transport for London and includes discussions with Network Rail. The station is a potential location for the London terminus of the High Speed rail link. | | Tottenham Court Road | An Urban Design Framework has been produced. The Boroughs are not keen to do a joint planning framework. An Opportunity Area Planning Framework is no longer being pursued. | | Victoria | Westminster City Council has resolved to grant planning application and the outstanding Crossrail issues have been resolved. | | Upper Lee Valley including Tottenham Hale | GLA, LDA and 3 boroughs and NLSA in partnership to progress an area wide framework for discussion between the boroughs in April 2009. The boroughs are seeking funding for an area wide transport capacity study. TfL have produced a brief and a regular series of steering group meetings are ongoing. | | Cricklewood/Brent Cross | Specific chapter in the Barnet UDP, agreed by Mayor, will form the Opportunity Area Framework. Planning application has been submitted. Barnet Council were minded to approve the scheme in November 2010 subject to S106. | | Colindale | LB Barnet progressing an Action Area Plan, which links to development opportunities in Brent. The AAP has now been adopted. | | Arsenal/Holloway | Last stages of Lough Road and Highbury Stadium conversion being built out. Planning application submitted for last phase of residential development. | | Mill Hill East | Action Area Plan has been published by LB Barnet. | | Haringey Heartlands/Wood Green | Spine road has been completed. Planning application for development across the remainder of the site expected to be considered Spring 2010. | | West Hampstead interchange | No planning Framework in place. Substantial technical issues development over rail lands and with rail franchise holders. | | Holborn | See Tottenham Court Road | | Farringdon/Smithfield | LDA and Design for London have produced an Urban Design Framework with Islington, City of London and Camden. | | **North East London** | | | Isle of Dogs | Tower Hamlets has restored their LDF Core Strategy that includes a detailed framework for development on the Isle of Dogs. Tower Hamlets not currently progressing a separate Opportunity Area Planning Framework. | | Name of Location | Progress at Feb 2010 | |------------------|----------------------| | City Fringe | Opportunity Area Planning Framework Public consultation undertaken in February 2008. A further series of meetings has been held with the Boroughs to progress the redrafting, they have asked for a further review in light of progress with their LDFs. | | Lower Lea Valley, inc Stratford | LDA Legacy Masterplan Framework undergoing consultation February to March 2009. Funding received from the LDA to produce an Olympic Legacy Planning Framework. Work is now underway on this document with a target of August 2010 for a consultation draft. | | Royal Docks | Minoco Wharf development permitted in 2008 including a new river passenger pier. Newham have begun a further review of the wider area with a view to producing their own planning framework. | | London Riverside | Funding from TGUDC to do a joint Opportunity Area Planning Framework with the Thames Gateway UDC. To begin in February 2010 and finish in February 2011. | | Ilford | Revised Action Area Plan produced in 2006. Crossrail project now confirmed. Joint ventures to redevelop old Town Hall and Kenneth Moore Theatre. |

**South East London**

| London Bridge | The Shard of Glass development is now beginning to emerge from the ground. Joint working with Southwark on London Bridge SPG including 3D modeling of tall buildings and transport capacity study. Draft SPG to be completed mid 2010. | | Elephant and Castle | Opportunity Area Framework adopted as SPG by LB Southwark. TfL undertaking traffic modeling for gyratory. There are now 4 consented major redevelopment schemes in the area and some are under construction. Outstanding transport issues yet to be resolved but a series of joint meetings are seeking to address the remaining issues. | | Deptford Creek/ Greenwich Riverside | LB Lewisham and LB Greenwich did not agree to work on a joint strategy. Design for London have produced a design framework which LB Lewisham is generally supporting. | | Lewisham- Catford – New Cross | LB Lewisham using the North Lewisham Framework as the basis for the AAP. Catford Dog Track scheme permitted. | | Greenwich Peninsula & Charlton Riverside West | Planning permission granted 2003. Implementation now underway with regular applications for variations to the outline scheme. | | Woolwich, Thamesmead & Charlton Riverside East | Greenwich has been minded to grant permission for 3000 units scheme, which includes provision of Crossrail Woolwich Station. Crossrail Station issue yet to be resolved but discussions ongoing. | | Bexley Riverside | Borough leading Opportunity Area Framework with involvement from GLA, LDA and TfL although little in progress so far. | | Canada Water/Surrey Quays | LB Southwark Masterplan in place and a series of development proposals coming through on that basis. | | Kidbrooke | Outline consent granted in November 2009, submission of details to follow. |

**South West London**

| Waterloo | Opportunity Area Framework published in September 2007 and endorsed by LB Lambeth. Lambeth now drafting an Action Area Plan. | | Name of Location | Progress at Feb 2010 | |----------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Vauxhall/Nine Elms/Battersea | Opportunity Area Framework being progressed by GLA and LB Lambeth and Wandsworth. First draft completed February 2009. Transport Capacity Study to conclude in April 2009. Consultation to be completed March 2010. Infrastructure study to begin February 2010 and to complete July 2010. | | Croydon | LB Croydon have suggested doing a joint Opportunity Planning Framework for Croydon Town Centre in 2009-2010. Details yet to be finalised. | | South Wimbledon/Colliers Wood | LB Merton have commissioned a study of the area’s potential. Report completed. | | **West London** | | | Heathrow (including Hayes, West Drayton, Southall, Feltham, Bedfont Lakes and Hounslow) | LDA funding towards an Opportunity Area Framework. Plan to progress mid 2010 with GLA taking the lead. | | Park Royal/Willesden Junction | Joint Opportunity Area Framework between LB Brent, LB Ealing, LB H&F, Park Royal Partnership, GLA, LDA and TfL approved by the Mayor in Feb 2008. Final published version to be issued in April 2010. | | Wembley | Opportunity Area Framework adopted by LB Brent as SPG and endorsed by Mayor. Stadium complete and first housing phases underway. Revised masterplans being completed by developers. Likely to be subject to a planning application mid 2010. | | White City | Joint borough, developer, GLA framework adopted as SPG by LB H&F and endorsed by Mayor. LB H&F extending the scope to the White City Estate. Funding secured for a revised Planning Framework from property owners, which includes transport capacity study. Began in June 2009 and to finish in June 2010. | Appendix 4 - National Regional Planning Guidance Indicators

The DCLG has published a set of Core Output Indicators for Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks. The GLA is not required to report on these indicators, but the list below sets out the indicators and how the information can be gathered for the London Plan area.

| No. | National Indicator | London Plan Approach | |-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------| | | **Business Development** | | | BD1 | Total amount of additional employment floorspace by type | See borough AMRs | | BD2 | Total amount of employment floorspace on previously developed land – by type | See borough AMRs | | BD3 | Employment land available – by type | See borough AMRs | | BD4 | Total amount of floorspace for town centre uses. | See borough AMRs | | | **Housing** | | | H1 | Plan period and housing targets | KPI 4 | | H2(a)| Net additional dwellings – in previous years | KPI 4 | | H2(b)| Net additional dwellings – for the reporting year | KPI 4 | | H2(c)| Net additional dwellings – for future years | See borough AMRs | | H3 | New and converted dwellings – on previously developed land | KPI 1 | | H4 | Net additional pitches –(Gypsy and traveller) | See borough AMRs | | H5 | Gross affordable housing completions | KPI 5 | | H6 | Housing quality – Building for Life Assessments | KPI 4 | | | **Environmental Quality** | | | E1 | Number of planning permissions granted contrary to Environment Agency advice on flooding and water quality grounds | KPI 24 (Does not include details of development adversely affecting water quality) | | E2 | Change in areas of biodiversity importance | See borough AMRs | | E3 | Renewable energy generation | KPI 23 | | | **Minerals** | | | M1 | Production of primary land won aggregates by mineral planning authority | See borough AMRs | | M2 | Production of secondary and recycled aggregates by mineral planning authority | See borough AMRs | | | **Waste** | | | W1 | Capacity of new waste management facilities by waste planning authority | See borough AMRs | | W2 | Amount of municipal waste arising, and managed by management type by waste planning authority | See borough AMRs |

## Appendix 5 - Mayoral activity on Development Plans

| Area | DPDs | |-----------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | Barking Town Centre Area Action Plan and Site Specific Allocations – Pre-submission Stage | | Barnet | Colindale Area Action Plan – Submission Stage | | Brent | Local Development Scheme | | | Core Strategy and Site specific allocations – Submission Stage | | Bromley | Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan – Pre-submission Stage | | Camden | Local Development Scheme | | | Core Strategy and Development Policies - Submission | | City of London | Local Development Scheme | | | Core Strategy - Draft | | Croydon | Core Strategy - Draft Issues and Options DPD | | | Revised Draft Local Development Scheme | | Ealing | Local Development Scheme | | | Strategy and Development Management DPD | | Enfield | North East Enfield Area Action Plan - Preferred Options | | | Strategic Growth Areas - Further Consultation | | | North East Enfield Area Action Plan – Preferred Options | | | Ponders End – A Framework for Change document | | Hackney | Local Development Scheme | | | Hackney Central Area Action Plan | | | Dalston Area Action Plan | | | Core Strategy - Submission Stage | | Hammersmith & Fulham | Core Strategy - Preferred Options | | | Local Development Scheme- Third Revision | | Haringey | Core Strategy - Preferred Options | | Hillingdon | Local Development Scheme | | | Biodiversity Action Plan | | Islington | Bunhill and Clerkenwell Area Action Plan - Consultation | | | Core Strategy - draft Direction of Travel | | | Core Strategy | | Kensington & Chelsea | Draft Local Development Scheme | | | Core Strategy Draft | | | Core Strategy – Draft Submission Consultation | | | Core Strategy - Submission | | Kingston upon Thames | Local Development Scheme | | | LDF Core Strategy - Consultation | | Lambeth | Core Strategy - Consultation | | | Site Allocations DPD - Issues and Options | | | Core Strategy - Submission | | Merton | Core Strategy | | | Local Development Scheme | | Newham | Development Control Manual DPD – Issues and Options | | | Local Development Scheme | | Area | DPDs | |----------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------| | Redbridge | Local Development Scheme – Revised | | Richmond | Local Development Scheme – Consultation Draft | | Southwark | Core Strategy - Issues and Options | | | Aylesbury Area Action Plan | | | Canada Water Area Action Plan | | | Peckham and Nunhead Area Action Plan – Issues and Options | | | Core Strategy - Preferred Options | | | Canada Water Area Action Plan | | Sutton | Site development policies - Preferred Options | | | Sutton Town Centre Area Action Plan - Preferred Options | | | Site Development Policies DPD | | Tower Hamlets | Core Strategy – Options and Alternatives | | | Core Strategy – Options and Alternatives | | | Core Strategy - pre submission | | Waltham Forest | Local Development Scheme | | | Northern Olympic Fringe and Lea Bridge Area Action Plan - Consultation | | Wandsworth | Local Development Scheme – Consultation | | | Core Strategy Submission Development Plan Document - Proposed Changes | | Westminster | Core Strategy pre-submission | | East London | Joint Waste Development Plan Document – Submission Draft | | North London | Waste Development Plan Document | | South London | Joint Waste Development Plan Document – Preferred Options Consultation |

| SPDs | UDP saved policy request’s | |-----------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------| | Hackney and Tower Hamlets | Barnet\
SPD: Bishopsgate Goods Yard | UDP - Request to save policies | | Harrow | Bromley\
SPD: Planning Obligations - Draft | UDP - Request to save policies | | Havering | Croydon\
SPD: Sustainable design and construction – Consultation Draft | UDP - Request to save policies | | | SPD: Protecting the Borough’s Bio-diversity and Protection of Trees during development – Consultation Draft | | Kensington & Chelsea | Greenwich\
SPD: Wornington Green Estate - Consultation | UDP - Request to save policies | | Lambeth | Waltham Forest\
SPD: Waterloo – Consultation Draft | UDP - Request to save policies | | | SPD: Vauxhall – Consultation Draft | UDP - Request to save policies | | SPDs | UDP saved policy request’s | |------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------| | Southwark | Westminster | | SPD: Sustainability Assessments – Consultation Draft | UDP – Saved policies assessment | | Sutton | | | SPD: Hackbridge sustainable suburb - Final Draft Masterplan | | Appendix 6 - Affordability Thresholds for Social and Intermediate housing

This Appendix relates to Policy 3A.8 of the London Plan Consolidated with Alterations Since 2004 (Paragraph 3.37) and updates the affordability thresholds as at February 2010.

Social Housing

There are three criteria in the definition of social housing:

- Housing is affordable in that rents are no greater than target rents as set by Government for local authority and housing association and co-operative tenants.
- Social housing should be accessed on the basis of housing need.
- Social housing should be available as such on a long-term basis

It follows that privately rented housing could be considered as social housing where these criteria are met. This would normally only be the case where such provision operated under an accreditation or licensing scheme where nominations of tenants were either made by the local authority or under a framework of priorities agreed with the local authority.

Rented accommodation, which is let on the basis of short-term lets (tenancies or licences of under 5 years) should not be treated as social housing. Rented housing which is not available on the basis of housing need, and is allocated on the basis of other criteria, for example criteria related to the employment function of members of the household, should not be considered as social housing. Housing which is provided on a temporary basis should not be considered as social housing.

Intermediate Housing

Intermediate provision is sub-market housing, where costs, including service charges, are above target rents for social housing, but where costs, including service charges, are affordable by households on incomes of less than £57,600(^2). This figure has been up-dated from the London Plan (2008) figure of £52,500 on the basis of the latest data (as of February 2010) on lower quartile house prices in London, and is a reduction from the figure of £61,400 in AMR 5.

In his draft statutory London Housing Strategy and his draft replacement London Plan, the Mayor set out his intention to raise the intermediate housing income threshold to £74,000 for households with dependents, in order to reflect the higher cost of both developing and buying family-sized homes in London.

Intermediate housing can include shared ownership, sub-market rent provision and market provision, including key worker provision, where this affordability criterion is met and where provision is appropriate to meeting identified requirements.

For the criterion that provision is affordable to be met, the purchase price must be no greater than 3.5 times the household income limit specified above (i.e. no greater than £201,500), or (for products where a rent is paid) the annual housing costs, including rent and service charge, should be no greater than 40% of net household income. (This is to reflect a different level of disposable income, relative to lower income households dependent on social housing). In the case of two or multiple income households, lenders will generally lend at lower multipliers in relation to incomes of

______________________________________________________________________

(^2) The income threshold for intermediate housing is currently set at a different level for planning and housing investment purposes. Under the Homes and Communities Agency investment criteria, the upper income level for intermediate housing is £60,000. household members other than the highest income earner, and consequently market access will generally be more restricted for such households.

Local planning authorities should seek to ensure that intermediate provision provides for households with a range of incomes below the upper limit, and provides a range of dwelling types in terms of a mix of unit sizes (measured by number of bedrooms), and that average housing costs, including service charges, to households for whom intermediate housing is provided are affordable by households on annual incomes of £37,900 pa (i.e. the midpoint of the range between £18,200 (updated from AMR 5 in line with RPI)-and £57,600 range). On this basis, average housing costs, including service charges, would be about £885 a month or £205 a week (housing costs at 40% of net income, net income being assumed to be 70% of gross income). This figure could be used for monitoring purposes. Appendix 7 - Progress on Regional Flood Risk Appraisal (RFRA) Recommendations

The RFRA was published in October 2009 and contained 19 recommendations that will be followed up over the next 5 years.

| No. | Recommendation | Progress at Feb 2010 | |-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | All Thames-side planning authorities should consider in their SFRAs and put in place DPD policies to promote the setting back of development from the edge of the Thames and tidal tributaries to enable sustainable and cost effective upgrade of river walls/embankments, in line with Policy 5.12, CFMPs and TE2100 | Limited progress through DPDs. | | 2 | The London Boroughs of Richmond, Kingston, Hounslow and Wandsworth should put in place policies to avoid development that would prejudice the implementation of increased channel capacity between Teddington Lock and Hammersmith Bridge in line with TE2100 findings | Env Agency progressing with Lower Thames Catchment Flood Management Plan | | 3 | The London Boroughs of Havering and Bexley should put in place policies to prevent development that would prejudice the use of Rainham/Wennington Marshes, Erith Marshes and Dartford/Crayford Marshes for emergency flood storage in line with TE2100 findings. Although outside London, Thurrock and Dartford should also consider this aspect of flood risk management | Env Agency progressing with TE2100 project | | 4 | Boroughs at confluences of tributary rivers with the River Thames should pay particular attention to the interaction of fluvial and tidal flood risks. These are Havering, Barking & Dagenham, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Greenwich, Lewisham, Wandsworth, Hounslow, Richmond and Kingston | Generally covered in SFRAs – need to check appropriateness | | 5 | Developments all across London should reduce surface water discharge in line with the Sustainable Drainage Hierarchy set out in Policy 5.13 of the draft replacement London Plan | Progressing well for large scale developments but limited for smaller scale development. | | 6 | Regeneration and redevelopment of London’s fluvial river corridors offer a crucial opportunity to reduce flood risk. SFRAs and policies should focus on making the most of this opportunity through appropriate location, layout and design of development as set out in PPS25 and the Thames CFMP. In particular opportunities should be sought to: Set back of development from the river edge to enable sustainable and cost effective flood risk management options Ensure that the buildings with residual flood risk are designed to be flood compatible or flood resilient Use open spaces within developments which have a residual flood risk to act as flood storage areas | Generally being implemented through application of PPS25, although limited action on set back | | 7 | Once funding is confirmed Drain London will investigate and plan for long term management of London’s surface water infrastructure in order to reduce surface water flood risk. | Drain London funding confirmed to 2011, project currently being initialised | | 8 | Organisations responsible for development with large roof areas should investigate providing additional surface water run-off storage | No specific actions as yet | | No. | Recommendation | Progress at Feb 2010 | |-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 9 | Thames Water to continue the programme of addressing foul sewer flooding | Underway although future funding reduced through OfWat settlement | | 10 | That groundwater flood risk is kept under review | No current evidence of increased risk | | 11 | Network Rail should examine the London Rail infrastructure for potential flooding locations and flood risk reduction measures. For large stations, solutions should be sought to store or disperse rainwater from heavy storms; this may involve the need for off site storage | No specific actions as yet. GLA will contact Network Rail in 2010 | | 12 | London Underground and DLR should keep potential flood risks to their infrastructure and flood risk reduction measures under review and up to date | Ongoing but needs regular review | | 13 | TfL, Highways Agency and London boroughs should continue to monitor the flood risk and flood risk reduction measures at these locations and any others with a potential flood risk | Ongoing but needs regular review | | 14 | Bus operators should examine bus garages for potential flood risks and put in place remedial or mitigation measures where there is a significant risk | No specific actions as yet | | 15 | Edgware Hospital should carry out a flood risk assessment of its current premises and determine any mitigation works necessary to ensure that the hospital can continue to operate in the event of a flood on the Silk Stream | No specific actions as yet. GLA will contact NHS in 2010 | | 16 | Other hospitals in the above table should examine how they may cope in the event of a major flood | No specific actions as yet. GLA will contact NHS in 2010 | | 17 | The National Offender Management Service should ensure that there is an emergency plan for Belmarsh Prison in the event of a major flood | No specific actions as yet. GLA will contact NOMS in 2010 | | 18 | Operators of London’s emergency services should ensure that emergency plans for flooding incidents are kept up to date and suitable cover arrangements are in place in the event of a flood effecting operational locations | London Flood Emergency Plan currently being reviewed | | 19 | Operators of electricity, gas, water and sewerage utility sites should maintain an up to date assessment of the flood risk to their installations and considering the likely impacts of failure, programme any necessary protection measures, this may include secondary flood defences | No specific actions as yet. GLA will contact utility companies in 2010 | Appendix 8 - Housing Provision in London 2008/9: Annual Monitor

Introduction

The 2004 London Plan set a target of at least 23,000 homes to be provided in London each year. Early Alterations to the London Plan, published in December 2006, increased the target to 30,500 homes each year. In February 2008, the London Plan (Consolidated with alterations since 2004) confirmed the housing provision target of a minimum 30,500 new homes per year from 2007/8 to 2016. The data in this Monitor are assessed against this target.

The plan also sets out a commitment to monitor achievement of this and the related borough targets. This Housing Provision Monitor is one of a series addressing this commitment and complements the London Plan Annual Monitoring Report. It is based largely on borough returns to the London Development Database (LDD). This was established with government support and is widely regarded as the most authoritative source of information on housing provision in London. Further details of the monitoring process and its results are set out in more detail in Section 3 below, and tables and figures are included at Section 4.

Summary of Results

How many new homes, what type and where?

In net terms, 30,300 homes were completed in London in 2008/9. The shortfall with the London Plan target of 30,500 is explained by an increased number of homes falling into long-term vacancy. Taking out the ‘vacant homes returning to use component’, the total supply of new homes is, for the first time, slightly higher than the London Plan target. (See Table HPM5 at Section 4).

The net total of completions in 2008/9 is comprised of 28,302 self-contained (‘conventional’) dwellings and 2,470 non-self contained units (for example hostels and student accommodation) with an increase of 460 private sector homes standing vacant for more than six months.

The net completions figures take into account demolitions. The gross number of new conventional homes actually built in London in 2008/9 was 32,445.

In 2000, the year the GLA was established, only 19,500 net self-contained dwellings were completed. Since the Mayor’s London Plan was formally published in 2004, net output has increased from 21,000 in 2003/4 to 22,900 in 2004/5, 24,900 in 2005/6 and 27,300 in 2006/7 and 28,200 in 2007/8. The current figure (28,300) is the highest level of self-contained completions since 1988.

In 2008/9 just over a third (35%) of new gross provision was affordable housing (11,300 units). This figure excludes 100 market units considered affordable by the local authority. The breakdown of affordable units shows slightly more social rented (53%) than Intermediate (47%). However, when net supply is considered there are slightly more intermediate than social rented completions reflecting the large number of social rented losses. Information on development proposals under construction suggests that the social rented housing delivery is likely to increase compared to intermediate, with 60% social rented compared to 40% in 2008/9 approvals. There is an appreciable difference in bedroom size between the two types of affordable housing with intermediate housing comprising of just 6% of homes with more than 2 bedrooms, but for social rented homes the figures is four times higher at 25%.

These figures are rounded. See section 3 for more detailed figures. All sub-regions exceeded their targets set out in the consolidated London Plan (2008), except the North-East London, the same position as last year. On average over the last three years Tower Hamlets (2,600 dwellings) and Islington (2,000) have made the largest individual contributions to London-wide provision(^4) followed by Hackney (1,590), Southwark (1,430) and Wandsworth (1,350). Together these five boroughs account for around a third of new provision. Cumulatively, the smaller contributions of other boroughs are therefore critical to achievement of the London wide target.

**What’s going to happen in the future?**

The 2008/9 figure for net units ‘under construction’ designated by the system is almost the same as that in the previous 2007/8 year. However, many of these may not be actually in the process of being built and it is more prudent to consider only as part of the development pipeline. For the longer term, the 2008/9 level of planning approvals (45,900) is significantly lower than previous years (2007/8: 80,100; 2006/7: 57,700; 2005/6: 52,700). This has contributed to the generous overall pipeline of approvals for homes, which stood at 98,400 dwellings as at the end of the 2008/9 year, down 9,300 dwellings on the previous yearly figure. To this, it would be meaningful to add the 64,500 dwellings designated in the system as under construction to give a total development pipeline of 162,900 dwellings.

**Detailed Results**

**Introduction to detailed results**

Information on housing permissions, starts and completions is taken from the London Development Database (LDD) system. As the LDD system covers all relevant planning consents, the figures in this report are based on recorded schemes rather than on aggregate data. They are more accurate than data published in previous years, and than CLG (Communities and Local Government) data, which relies on quarterly borough returns, which are sometimes incomplete. Data used in this report relate to data input by boroughs onto the LDD system as at 18(^{th}) February 2010.

The London Plan housing target adopted in February 2008 of 30,500 homes a year relates to net additions to housing supply from all sources. This includes net gain from new build, conversion of existing residential premises and change of use of non-residential premises. It also includes output from non self-contained accommodation and a component of supply from long-term private vacant properties returning to use.

LDD separately records output of self-contained and non self-contained accommodation (student and hostel accommodation) and these data are used in this report. However, data on long-term private sector vacants returning to use is not monitored through LDD and is therefore sourced separately. It is recognised that monitoring of long term private sector vacants returning to use can be problematic. The data for this source is from returns provided by boroughs to CLG through the annual Housing Strategy Statistical Annex return (HSSA)(^5). This monitor uses data for 2008/9 compared to 2007/8 from Section A of the HSSA, which counts private sector units vacant for six months or more (which are not vacant for regeneration purposes). The Mayor’s London Housing Strategy commits to improve the monitoring of long term private sector empty homes through the completion of a London wide audit undertaken by boroughs. The audit will provide more accurate

______________________________________________________________________

(^4) Data refers to net conventional supply

(^5) Data available at [http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/housingstatisticsby/localauthorityhousing/dataforms/](http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/housingstatisticsby/localauthorityhousing/dataforms/) monitoring information from that based on Council Tax records. With the majority of boroughs no longer offering Council Tax discounts on long term empty homes (in line with the policy of the Mayor’s London Housing Strategy to remove such incentives), Council Tax records no longer provide an accurate count these properties.

The LDD data for completions includes all units within a scheme completed in a financial year. However, demolitions of existing units are counted upon full completion of the whole scheme. In the case of large developments, particularly large Estate Renewal schemes, this can cause statistical anomalies in single-year net figures, although the LDD records accurate net completions over the life of the scheme (i.e. where completions have been counted over a number of years, but where existing units demolished are counted in a single, final, year). Significant anomalies to single year data are noted within this Monitor. The GLA will continue to keep under review the most appropriate way of monitoring completed units.

**Residential planning approvals (Table HPM1 & Table HPM9)**

Net residential planning approvals in 2008/9 included 45,883 self contained homes, very much lower than previous year, 80,139 (2007/8) and still less than the 2005/6 figure of 57,661. This represents a decrease (43%) in residential planning approvals in London over last year, and is the lowest figures since 2003/4. In addition there were approvals for 2,198 net non self-contained bedspaces (student and hostel accommodation) in London in 2008/9.

Monitoring of permissions is net of units lost from redevelopment or conversion. Gross residential permissions in 2008/9 were for 55,333 self-contained units and 4,238 non self- contained bedspaces – a total of 59,571 units.

**Self contained completions (Table HPM3 & Table HPM5)**

Net self-contained residential completions in 2008/9 comprised 28,302 homes, an increase on previous years (28,242 in 2007/8; 27,302 in 2006/7; 25,137 in 2005/6). This represents 103% of the conventional supply (self contained homes) component of the housing target of 27,596 homes.

**Non self-contained completions (Table HPM2)**

Net non self-contained net completions (student and hostel accommodation) in 2008/9 created 2,470 bedspaces (compared to 1,221 in 2007/8, 4409 in 2006/76, 615 in 2005/6). This is over 50% higher than the component of the consolidated London Plan (2008) target.

**Vacant properties returning to use**

Local authority returns to CLG show an overall Londonwide growth in long term private sector voids in the financial year 2008/ of 460 units, shown in Table HPM2, far below the current target.

______________________________________________________________________

6 London Plan (Consolidated with alterations since 2004), 2008.

7 The non self contained supply component of the consolidated London Plan 2008 target is 1,578 units.

8 Returns to Question 5.2 of HSSA 2008/9 for private sector vacant units (excluding those vacant for regeneration purposes) for 2008/9 compared to 2007/8. Responses to this question were provided by all boroughs for both 2007/8 and 2008/9.

9 The vacants returning to use component of the target in the 1999 Housing Capacity Study (2004 London Plan target) is 1,236 homes per year. The new monitoring target (see consolidated London Plan, Annex 10) is 1,317 units. However the figures for boroughs vary widely, with some boroughs showing significant decreases in vacants and others significant increases. It is probable that some borough returns are based on inadequate monitoring or indicate a change of data source or methodology. This concern as to the unreliability of data is shared by the Government and the Mayor. The Mayor’s London Housing Strategy commits to improve the monitoring of long term private sector empty homes through the completion of a London wide audit undertaken by boroughs.

**Housing starts (Table HPM4)**

The LDD shows net starts in 2008/9 of 33,157 self-contained units compared with (2007/8: 44,083 and 2006/7: 37,584). The last two of these years is above this component of the London Plan target (27,597). It should be noted that housing starts in particular are susceptible to changes in the housing market that may impact on the number of starts recorded in future years.

**Borough completions relative to targets**

**Conventional supply (Table HPM5)**

Table HPM5 compares 2008/9 conventional net completions with the conventional component of the borough targets. Londonwide, output was 103% of the conventional component of the target. Performance was best in South West London at 151% of target. North and West achieved 139% and 126% respectively. North East and South East achieved 67% and 73% respectively.

Output varies between years. Table HPM6 therefore gives three year averages for the years 2006/7 to 2008/9 with Londonwide output at 113% of target. This is a sounder basis for comparing borough and sub-regional performance against target. On this basis, West and South West London have performed best on conventional output – at 152% and 142% of the conventional component of the target. South East and North achieved 95% and 129% of target component respectively and North East London achieved 80%. Individual borough performance, however, varied widely with Newham achieving just 37% of target while Hounslow achieved 285% of its target.

**Total supply (Table HPM2)**

Table HPM2 shows sub-regional and borough performance in relation to London Plan targets in 2008/9. Output overall was 99% of the 30,500 target. Performance in all sub-regions exceeded targets, except North East and South East London. In some boroughs performance has been affected by significant increases in long term private sector vacant properties, reducing supply gains from conventional and non self-contained completions. Such fluctuations in vacancies can often be attributed to difficulties in monitoring.

**Supply from new build, conversions and change of use**

The components of conventional supply are summarised as follows:

| Gross completions | Pre-existing units | Net completions | |-------------------|--------------------|-----------------| | New Building | 24,521 | 1,565 | 23,956 | | Conversions | 4,648 | 2,342 | 2,306 | | Change of Use | 3,276 | 236 | 3,040 | | **Total** | **32,445** | **4,143** | **28,302** | Table HPM3 shows that in 2008/9 just over 80% of conventional net completions are new build. Net conversions from existing homes were the same as last year at 8% whilst net completions from changes of use increased slightly up from 10% to 11%.

**Tenure, mix and bedroom size**

In gross terms, 5,997 units completed were recorded as social housing, 5,324 as intermediate and 21,124 as market provision. 11,321 affordable units (social rented and intermediate) were completed in 2008/9. This excludes additional properties, which have been transferred or purchased for social or intermediate use.

In net terms, the proportion of social rented (5,202 units) and intermediate (5,284 units) completed homes was almost identical showing that social rented losses are far greater than intermediate losses. For every existing intermediate home there were 20 social rented homes being lost.

Table HPM6 shows that over the three years 2006/7-8/9 the delivery of affordable housing has increased. North London delivered the highest number of affordable housing units (7,682).

Table HPM9 shows that a greater proportion of net affordable housing approved in 2008/9 is intermediate than social rented. Of 45,884 net approvals which includes those designated as market (34,965), 5,529 (12%) were for intermediate homes and 5,390 (11.7%) for social rented homes.

Table HPM10 shows that four out of every 10 homes completed in 2008/9 were two bedroom. The greatest need for larger units is in the social rented sector and in 2008/9, 29% of completed homes were for three bedrooms or more. Most intermediate dwellings (96%) and market units (88%) had either one or two bedrooms.

**Overall Affordable Housing Delivery**

The fifth London Plan Annual Monitoring Report included a table estimating overall affordable housing delivery by borough, combining a number of different data sources on different types of supply over and above the net conventional provision currently shown in Table 19. The government has now published a comprehensive set of statistics, which in future will be used for monitoring this broader measure of affordable housing provision.

The government’s statistics show affordable housing delivery according not only to where the homes in question are located, but also according to the ‘sponsoring’ local authority. The difference arises where a household from one area (the sponsoring local authority) purchases an intermediate home in another (the location). The government uses the sponsoring local authority measure to monitor performance against LAA targets.

HPM7 shows overall affordable housing delivery for investment purposes in 2008/09, broken down by location and sponsoring local authority, and separated into social housing and intermediate housing. These figures are taken from the Housing Live Tables provided by Communities and Local Government. They are based on the application for grant payments. More information can be found on the website: [http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/livetables/](http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/livetables/).

______________________________________________________________________

10 Communities and Local Government, Affordable Housing Supply, England, 2008/09 - [http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/affordablehousing200809](http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/affordablehousing200809) - and accompanying ‘Live Tables’. In 2008/09 there were 12,890 such affordable homes delivered in London, and 13,160 homes where London boroughs were the sponsoring local authority. This difference is largely explained by a number of households from London boroughs purchasing intermediate homes in other regions. According to both measures just under half the homes delivered were social housing and just over half were intermediate.

The borough with the highest level of delivery was Tower Hamlets, with total affordable housing delivery of 1,310 (by sponsoring borough). The next highest was Hackney, at 1,010. The borough with the lowest level of delivery was City of London, with 10 homes delivered, followed by Kingston upon Thames at 50. Tables and Charts

Figure HPM 1: Total 2008/9 Housing Supply against London Plan target, ranked by delivery as percentage of target Map HPM 1: Affordable Housing Provision By Borough

Percentage of total net conventional completions classed as affordable 2008/09

- 60 to 80 (1)
- 40 to 59 (13)
- 20 to 39 (15)
- 1 to 19 (2)
- 0 (2)

Source: The London Development Database, GLA © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Greater London Authority 100032379 (2010) Map HPM 2: Lifetime Homes as a percentage of Residential Approvals by Borough

Percentage of approvals that meet the Lifetime Homes standard 2008/09

- 75 to 100 (6)
- 50 to 74 (8)
- 25 to 49 (8)
- 1 to 24 (9)
- 0 (2)

Source: The London Development Database, GLA © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Greater London Authority 100032379 (2010) Map HPM 3: Wheelchair Accessible Homes as a percentage of Residential Approvals by Borough

Source: The London Development Database, GLA © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Greater London Authority 100032379 (2010) | Borough Name | New build | Conversion | Change of use | All development types | |--------------|-----------|------------|---------------|----------------------| | | Proposed | Existing | Net | Proposed | Existing | Net | Proposed | Existing | Net | | Barnet | 3,932 | 1,417 | 2,515 | 325 | 147 | 178 | 55 | 12 | 43 | 4,312 | 1,576 | 2,736 | | Camden | 576 | 97 | 479 | 187 | 177 | 10 | 164 | 8 | 156 | 927 | 282 | 645 | | Enfield | 745 | 82 | 663 | 233 | 104 | 129 | 43 | 13 | 30 | 1,021 | 199 | 822 | | Hackney | 1,705 | 642 | 1,063 | 275 | 115 | 160 | 85 | 60 | 25 | 2,065 | 817 | 1,248 | | Haringey | 572 | 51 | 521 | 239 | 105 | 134 | 55 | 3 | 52 | 866 | 159 | 707 | | Islington | 1,535 | 549 | 986 | 243 | 106 | 137 | 208 | 25 | 183 | 1,986 | 680 | 1,306 | | Westminster | 375 | 116 | 259 | 282 | 152 | 130 | 388 | 37 | 351 | 1,045 | 305 | 740 | | North Subregion: | 9,440 | 2,954 | 6,486 | 1,784 | 906 | 878 | 998 | 158 | 840 | 12,222 | 4,018 | 8,204 | | Barking and Dagenham | 1,593 | 3 | 1,590 | 47 | 21 | 26 | 108 | 1 | 107 | 1,748 | 25 | 1,723 | | City of London | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 104 | 4 | 100 | 106 | 4 | 102 | | Havering | 537 | 27 | 510 | 42 | 19 | 23 | 50 | 6 | 44 | 629 | 52 | 577 | | Newham | 6,132 | 270 | 5,862 | 126 | 50 | 76 | 81 | 9 | 72 | 6,339 | 329 | 6,010 | | Redbridge | 181 | 7 | 174 | 39 | 18 | 21 | 16 | 10 | 6 | 236 | 35 | 201 | | Tower Hamlets | 6,378 | 282 | 6,096 | 63 | 46 | 17 | 61 | 2 | 59 | 6,502 | 330 | 6,172 | | Waltham Forest | 227 | 6 | 221 | 161 | 87 | 74 | 143 | 4 | 139 | 531 | 97 | 434 | | North East Subregion: | 15,050 | 595 | 14,455 | 478 | 241 | 237 | 563 | 36 | 527 | 16,091 | 872 | 15,219 | | Bexley | 438 | 20 | 418 | 26 | 9 | 17 | 27 | 5 | 22 | 491 | 34 | 457 | | Bromley | 863 | 103 | 760 | 151 | 66 | 85 | 132 | 13 | 119 | 1,146 | 182 | 964 | | Greenwich | 869 | 53 | 816 | 79 | 40 | 39 | 32 | 8 | 24 | 980 | 101 | 879 | | Lewisham | 1,870 | 145 | 1,725 | 251 | 99 | 152 | 153 | 6 | 147 | 2,274 | 250 | 2,024 | | Southwark | 3,328 | 28 | 3,300 | 169 | 72 | 97 | 83 | 106 | -23 | 3,580 | 206 | 3,374 | | South East Subregion: | 7,368 | 349 | 7,019 | 676 | 286 | 390 | 427 | 138 | 289 | 8,471 | 773 | 7,698 | | Croydon | 2,203 | 81 | 2,122 | 381 | 166 | 215 | 226 | 14 | 212 | 2,810 | 261 | 2,549 | | Borough Name | New build | Conversion | Change of use | All development types | |------------------------------|-----------|------------|---------------|-----------------------| | | Proposed | Existing | Net | Proposed | Existing | Net | Proposed | Existing | Net | | Kingston upon Thames | 641 | 49 | 592 | 83 | 38 | 45 | 30 | 0 | 30 | | | | | | | | | | | | | Lambeth | 3,118 | 1,044 | 2,074 | 438 | 201 | 237 | 91 | 6 | 85 | | | | | | | | | | | | | Merton | 414 | 54 | 360 | 78 | 48 | 30 | 252 | 8 | 244 | | | | | | | | | | | | | Richmond upon Thames | 339 | 60 | 279 | 98 | 60 | 38 | 165 | 4 | 161 | | | | | | | | | | | | | Sutton | 803 | 297 | 506 | 58 | 25 | 33 | 25 | 4 | 21 | | | | | | | | | | | | | Wandsworth | 1,683 | 67 | 1,616 | 307 | 190 | 117 | 106 | 6 | 100 | | | | | | | | | | | | | South West Subregion: | 9,201 | 1,652 | 7,549 | 1,443 | 728 | 715 | 895 | 42 | 853 | | | | | | | | | | | | | Brent | 886 | 296 | 590 | 162 | 105 | 57 | 183 | 8 | 175 | | | | | | | | | | | | | Ealing | 492 | 82 | 410 | 310 | 131 | 179 | 302 | 4 | 298 | | | | | | | | | | | | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 70 | 1 | 69 | 276 | 160 | 116 | 131 | 2 | 129 | | | | | | | | | | | | | Harrow | 290 | 90 | 200 | 146 | 71 | 75 | 33 | 7 | 26 | | | | | | | | | | | | | Hillingdon | 1,430 | 61 | 1,369 | 57 | 24 | 33 | 39 | 4 | 35 | | | | | | | | | | | | | Hounslow | 613 | 13 | 600 | 502 | 32 | 470 | 343 | 7 | 336 | | | | | | | | | | | | | Kensington and Chelsea | 476 | 67 | 409 | 152 | 186 | -34 | 117 | 14 | 103 | | | | | | | | | | | | | West Subregion: | 4,257 | 610 | 3,647 | 1,605 | 709 | 896 | 1,148 | 46 | 1,102 | | | | | | | | | | | | | Total: | 45,316 | 6,160 | 39,156 | 5,986 | 2,870 | 3,116| 4,031 | 420 | 3,611 | | | | | | | | | | | | | % of Total: | 85% | 7% | 8% | | | | | | |

Source: London Development Database | Borough Name | Market | Intermediate | Social rented | Total | Non-self contained | Long term vacant | Total | Target in 2008 plan | % of target delivered | |--------------------|--------|--------------|---------------|-------|--------------------|------------------|-------|---------------------|-----------------------| | Barnet | 701 | 47 | 267 | 1,015 | 0 | -53 | 962 | 2,055 | 47% | | Camden | 478 | 254 | 160 | 892 | 480 | -53 | 1,319 | 595 | 222% | | Enfield | 260 | 10 | 63 | 333 | 0 | 57 | 390 | 395 | 99% | | Hackney | 1,132 | 501 | 414 | 2,047 | 492 | -97 | 2,442 | 1,085 | 225% | | Haringey | 401 | 196 | 143 | 740 | 21 | 920 | 1,681 | 680 | 247% | | Islington | 1,872 | 56 | 342 | 2,270 | 257 | -99 | 2,428 | 1,160 | 209% | | Westminster | 490 | 92 | 139 | 721 | 13 | -730 | 4 | 680 | 1% | | North Subregion: | | | | | | | | | | | | 5,334 | 1,156 | 1,528 | 8,018 | 1,263 | -55 | 9,226 | 6,650 | 139% | | Barking and Dagenham | 230 | 101 | 56 | 387 | 116 | -62 | 441 | 1,190 | 37% | | City of London | 95 | 0 | 0 | 95 | 0 | -7 | 88 | 90 | 98% | | Havering | 347 | 192 | 109 | 648 | 0 | -65 | 583 | 535 | 109% | | Newham | 532 | 402 | 154 | 1,088 | 0 | 151 | 1,239 | 3,510 | 35% | | Redbridge | 506 | 62 | 55 | 623 | 0 | -117 | 506 | 905 | 56% | | Tower Hamlets | 1,382 | 961 | 544 | 2,887 | 269 | -351 | 2,805 | 3,150 | 89% | | Waltham Forest | 433 | 32 | 266 | 731 | -10 | 29 | 750 | 665 | 113% | | North East Subregion: | 3,525 | 1,750 | 1,184 | 6,459 | 375 | -422 | 6,412 | 10,045 | 64% | | Bexley | 172 | 0 | 50 | 222 | 0 | 31 | 253 | 345 | 73% | | Bromley | 311 | 52 | 125 | 488 | -9 | -71 | 408 | 485 | 84% | | Greenwich | 521 | 187 | 52 | 760 | 0 | 29 | 789 | 2,010 | 39% | | Lewisham | 695 | 154 | 74 | 923 | -7 | 23 | 939 | 975 | 96% | | Southwark | 730 | 143 | 174 | 1,047 | 103 | -115 | 1,035 | 1,630 | 63% | | South East Subregion: | 2,429 | 536 | 475 | 3,440 | 87 | -103 | 3,424 | 5,445 | 63% | | Croydon | 1,112 | 138 | 278 | 1,528 | -13 | 446 | 1,961 | 1,100 | 178% | | Kingston upon Thames | 184 | 0 | 0 | 184 | 214 | -152 | 246 | 385 | 64% | | Borough Name | Market | Intermediate | Social rented | Total | Non-self contained | Long term vacants | Total | Target in 2008 plan | % of target delivered | |------------------------------|--------|--------------|---------------|-------|--------------------|-------------------|-------|---------------------|-----------------------| | Lambeth | 531 | 221 | 343 | 1,095 | 8 | -307 | 796 | 1,100 | 72% | | Merton | 509 | 65 | 200 | 774 | 3 | -127 | 650 | 370 | 176% | | Richmond upon Thames | 215 | 48 | 87 | 350 | -6 | 27 | 371 | 270 | 137% | | Sutton | 224 | 97 | 146 | 467 | 0 | -34 | 433 | 345 | 126% | | Wandsworth | 1,102 | 391 | 88 | 1,581 | -14 | 34 | 1,601 | 745 | 215% | | South West Subregion: | 3,877 | 960 | 1,142 | 5,979 | 192 | -113 | 6,058 | 4,315 | 141% | | Brent | 446 | 259 | 226 | 931 | 2 | 284 | 1,217 | 1,120 | 109% | | Ealing | 519 | 218 | 91 | 828 | -15 | 258 | 1,071 | 915 | 117% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 141 | 115 | 197 | 453 | -69 | 173 | 557 | 450 | 124% | | Harrow | 542 | 152 | 76 | 770 | -40 | 22 | 752 | 400 | 188% | | Hillingdon | 608 | 42 | 135 | 785 | 702 | -23 | 1,464 | 365 | 401% | | Hounslow | 323 | 82 | 132 | 537 | 8 | 87 | 632 | 445 | 142% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 72 | 14 | 16 | 102 | -35 | -568 | -501 | 350 | -143% | | West Subregion: | 2,651 | 882 | 873 | 4,406 | 553 | 233 | 5,178 | 4,045 | 128% | | Total: | 17,816 | 5,284 | 5,202 | 28,302| 2,470 | -460 | 30,312| 30,500 | 99% |

Source: London Development Database | Borough Name | New build | Conversion | Change of use | All development types | |-------------------|-----------|------------|---------------|-----------------------| | | Proposed | Existing | Proposed | Existing | Net | Proposed | Existing | Net | Proposed | Existing | Net | | Barnet | 1,067 | 109 | 958 | 73 | 26 | 47 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 1,150 | 135 | 1,015 | | Camden | 692 | 10 | 682 | 129 | 119 | 10 | 203 | 3 | 200 | 1,024 | 132 | 892 | | Enfield | 240 | 15 | 225 | 176 | 82 | 94 | 16 | 2 | 14 | 432 | 99 | 333 | | Hackney | 1,661 | 101 | 1,560 | 483 | 211 | 272 | 230 | 15 | 215 | 2,374 | 327 | 2,047 | | Haringey | 636 | 11 | 625 | 157 | 72 | 85 | 35 | 5 | 30 | 828 | 88 | 740 | | Islington | 2,054 | 119 | 1,935 | 279 | 122 | 157 | 184 | 6 | 178 | 2,517 | 247 | 2,270 | | Westminster | 547 | 52 | 495 | 159 | 132 | 27 | 250 | 51 | 199 | 956 | 235 | 721 | | North Subregion: | 6,897 | 417 | 6,480 | 1,456 | 764 | 692 | 928 | 82 | 846 | 9,281 | 1,263 | 8,018 | | Barking and | 362 | 5 | 357 | 44 | 21 | 23 | 8 | 1 | 7 | 414 | 27 | 387 | | Dagenham | | | | | | | | | | | | | | City of London | 78 | 14 | 64 | 1 | 2 | -1 | 38 | 6 | 32 | 117 | 22 | 95 | | Havering | 645 | 25 | 620 | 18 | 9 | 9 | 21 | 2 | 19 | 684 | 36 | 648 | | Newham | 1,052 | 53 | 999 | 98 | 36 | 62 | 32 | 5 | 27 | 1,182 | 94 | 1,088 | | Redbridge | 446 | 3 | 443 | 12 | 5 | 7 | 174 | 1 | 173 | 632 | 9 | 623 | | Tower Hamlets | 2,918 | 108 | 2,810 | 31 | 15 | 16 | 82 | 21 | 61 | 3,031 | 144 | 2,887 | | Waltham Forest | 525 | 14 | 511 | 240 | 108 | 132 | 90 | 2 | 88 | 855 | 124 | 731 | | North East | 6,026 | 222 | 5,804 | 444 | 196 | 248 | 445 | 38 | 407 | 6,915 | 456 | 6,459 | | Subregion: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Bexley | 171 | 5 | 166 | 16 | 5 | 11 | 48 | 3 | 45 | 235 | 13 | 222 | | Bromley | 506 | 140 | 366 | 72 | 33 | 39 | 87 | 4 | 83 | 665 | 177 | 488 | | Greenwich | 941 | 232 | 709 | 54 | 27 | 27 | 26 | 2 | 26 | 1,023 | 261 | 760 | | Lewisham | 821 | 126 | 695 | 182 | 68 | 114 | 118 | 4 | 114 | 1,121 | 198 | 923 | | Southwark | 922 | 20 | 902 | 125 | 48 | 77 | 70 | 2 | 68 | 1,117 | 70 | 1,047 | | South East | 3,361 | 523 | 2,838 | 449 | 181 | 268 | 351 | 15 | 336 | 4,161 | 719 | 3,440 | | Subregion: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Croydon | 811 | 38 | 773 | 333 | 131 | 202 | 561 | 8 | 553 | 1,705 | 177 | 1,528 | | Borough Name | New build | Conversion | Change of use | All development types | |------------------------------|-----------|------------|---------------|-----------------------| | | Proposed | Existing | Net | Proposed | Existing | Net | Proposed | Existing | Net | Proposed | Existing | Net | | Kingston upon Thames | 129 | 20 | 109 | 67 | 25 | 42 | 34 | 1 | 33 | 230 | 46 | 184 | | Lambeth | 871 | 19 | 852 | 358 | 160 | 198 | 46 | 1 | 45 | 1,275 | 180 | 1,095 | | Merton | 747 | 20 | 727 | 86 | 49 | 37 | 15 | 5 | 10 | 848 | 74 | 774 | | Richmond upon Thames | 300 | 26 | 274 | 135 | 77 | 58 | 24 | 6 | 18 | 459 | 109 | 350 | | Sutton | 335 | 35 | 300 | 104 | 56 | 48 | 144 | 25 | 119 | 583 | 116 | 467 | | Wandsworth | 1,234 | 23 | 1,211 | 383 | 262 | 121 | 258 | 9 | 249 | 1,875 | 294 | 1,581 | | South West Subregion: | 4,427 | 181 | 4,246 | 1,466 | 760 | 706 | 1,082 | 55 | 1,027 | 6,975 | 996 | 5,979 | | Brent | 827 | 9 | 818 | 175 | 119 | 56 | 64 | 7 | 57 | 1,066 | 135 | 931 | | Ealing | 675 | 25 | 650 | 189 | 64 | 125 | 59 | 6 | 53 | 923 | 95 | 828 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 352 | 29 | 323 | 139 | 70 | 69 | 62 | 1 | 61 | 553 | 100 | 453 | | Harrow | 693 | 61 | 632 | 147 | 68 | 79 | 63 | 4 | 59 | 903 | 133 | 770 | | Hillingdon | 784 | 37 | 747 | 37 | 15 | 22 | 18 | 2 | 16 | 839 | 54 | 785 | | Hounslow | 416 | 53 | 363 | 68 | 28 | 40 | 137 | 3 | 134 | 711 | 84 | 537 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 63 | 8 | 55 | 78 | 77 | 1 | 69 | 23 | 46 | 210 | 108 | 102 | | West Subregion: | 3,900 | 222 | 3,678 | 833 | 441 | 392 | 472 | 46 | 426 | 5,205 | 709 | 4,406 | | Total: | 24,611 | 1,565 | 23,046 | 4,648 | 2,342 | 2,306 | 3,278 | 236 | 3,042 | 32,537 | 4,143 | 28,302 | | % of Total | 81% | 8% | 11% | | | | | | | | | |

Source: London Development Database | Borough Name | New build | Conversion | Change of use | All development types | |--------------|-----------|------------|---------------|-----------------------| | | Proposed | Existing | Net | Proposed | Existing | Net | Proposed | Existing | Net | | Barnet | 266 | 3 | 263 | 84 | 17 | 67 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 350 | 20 | 330 | | Camden | 230 | 45 | 185 | 133 | 113 | 20 | 115 | 0 | 115 | 478 | 158 | 320 | | Enfield | 784 | 36 | 748 | 201 | 88 | 113 | 29 | 8 | 21 | 1,014 | 132 | 882 | | Hackney | 472 | 53 | 419 | 137 | 47 | 90 | 52 | 4 | 48 | 661 | 104 | 557 | | Haringey | 1,551 | 136 | 1,415 | 136 | 63 | 73 | 24 | 4 | 20 | 1,711 | 203 | 1,508 | | Islington | 640 | 22 | 618 | 234 | 94 | 140 | 291 | 4 | 287 | 1,165 | 120 | 1,045 | | Westminster | 528 | 64 | 464 | 260 | 135 | 125 | 332 | 33 | 299 | 1,120 | 232 | 888 | | North Subregion: | 4,471 | 359 | 4,112 | 1,185 | 557 | 628 | 843 | 53 | 790 | 6,499 | 969 | 5,530 | | Barking and Dagenham | 319 | 46 | 273 | 37 | 15 | 22 | 6 | 0 | 6 | 362 | 61 | 301 | | City of London | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 105 | 1 | 104 | 106 | 1 | 105 | | Havering | 883 | 19 | 864 | 32 | 14 | 18 | 43 | 2 | 41 | 958 | 35 | 923 | | Newham | 5,919 | 10 | 5,909 | 109 | 43 | 66 | 136 | 6 | 130 | 6,164 | 59 | 6,105 | | Redbridge | 386 | 6 | 380 | 22 | 8 | 14 | 11 | 1 | 10 | 419 | 15 | 404 | | Tower Hamlets| 2,861 | 74 | 2,787 | 66 | 53 | 13 | 43 | 1 | 42 | 2,970 | 128 | 2,842 | | Waltham Forest | 355 | 12 | 343 | 158 | 75 | 83 | 79 | 0 | 79 | 592 | 87 | 505 | | North East Subregion: | 10,724 | 167 | 10,557 | 424 | 208 | 216 | 423 | 11 | 412 | 11,571 | 386 | 11,185 | | Bexley | 204 | 25 | 179 | 25 | 7 | 18 | 20 | 0 | 20 | 249 | 32 | 217 | | Bromley | 547 | 74 | 473 | 91 | 37 | 54 | 52 | 1 | 51 | 690 | 112 | 578 | | Greenwich | 455 | 85 | 370 | 29 | 16 | 13 | 304 | 2 | 302 | 788 | 103 | 685 | | Lewisham | 701 | 7 | 694 | 151 | 54 | 97 | 77 | 5 | 72 | 929 | 66 | 863 | | Southwark | 2,013 | 12 | 2,001 | 80 | 29 | 51 | 68 | 105 | -37 | 2,161 | 146 | 2,015 | | South East Subregion: | 3,920 | 203 | 3,717 | 376 | 143 | 233 | 521 | 113 | 408 | 4,817 | 459 | 4,358 | | Croydon | 1,539 | 71 | 1,468 | 211 | 83 | 128 | 73 | 4 | 69 | 1,823 | 158 | 1,665 | | Borough Name | New build | Conversion | Change of use | All development types | |------------------------------|-----------|------------|---------------|-----------------------| | | Proposed | Existing | Net | Proposed | Existing | Net | Proposed | Existing | Net | | Kingston upon Thames | 83 | 12 | 71 | 36 | 14 | 22 | 32 | 1 | 31 | | Lambeth | 4,133 | 1,176 | 2,957 | 279 | 122 | 157 | 41 | 1 | 40 | | Merton | 654 | 27 | 627 | 57 | 36 | 21 | 16 | 5 | 11 | | Richmond upon Thames | 158 | 20 | 138 | 97 | 58 | 39 | 35 | 3 | 32 | | Sutton | 149 | 27 | 122 | 31 | 16 | 15 | 9 | 4 | 5 | | Wandsworth | 562 | 22 | 540 | 256 | 180 | 76 | 80 | 4 | 76 | | South West Subregion: | 7,278 | 1,355 | 5,923 | 967 | 509 | 458 | 286 | 22 | 264 | | Brent | 518 | 47 | 471 | 153 | 103 | 50 | 74 | 7 | 67 | | Ealing | 1,206 | 398 | 808 | 159 | 50 | 109 | 68 | 0 | 68 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 141 | 1 | 140 | 139 | 72 | 67 | 78 | 1 | 77 | | Harrow | 1,285 | 206 | 1,079 | 126 | 58 | 68 | 33 | 4 | 29 | | Hillingdon | 1,336 | 35 | 1,301 | 47 | 17 | 30 | 11 | 3 | 8 | | Hounslow | 122 | 11 | 111 | 480 | 28 | 452 | 299 | 4 | 295 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 181 | 28 | 153 | 111 | 114 | -3 | 62 | 3 | 59 | | West Subregion: | 4,789 | 726 | 4,063 | 1,215 | 442 | 773 | 625 | 22 | 603 | | Total: | 31,182 | 2,810 | 28,372 | 4,167 | 1,859 | 2,308| 2,698 | 221 | 2,477| | % of Total | 86% | | 7% | 7% | | | | | |

Source: London Development Database | Borough Name | Market | Intermediate | Social rented | Total | Conventional component of housing target | Delivery as % of target | |----------------------|--------|--------------|---------------|-------|------------------------------------------|------------------------| | Barnet | 701 | 47 | 267 | 1,015 | 1,886 | 54% | | Camden | 478 | 254 | 160 | 892 | 437 | 204% | | Enfield | 260 | 10 | 63 | 333 | 367 | 91% | | Hackney | 1,132 | 501 | 414 | 2,047 | 926 | 221% | | Haringey | 401 | 196 | 143 | 740 | 595 | 124% | | Islington | 1,872 | 56 | 342 | 2,270 | 992 | 229% | | Westminster | 490 | 92 | 139 | 721 | 560 | 129% | | North Subregion: | 5,334 | 1,156 | 1,528 | 8,018 | 5,763 | 139% | | Barking and Dagenham | 230 | 101 | 56 | 387 | 1,191 | 32% | | City of London | 95 | 0 | 0 | 95 | 85 | 112% | | Havering | 347 | 192 | 109 | 648 | 510 | 127% | | Newham | 532 | 402 | 154 | 1,088 | 3,467 | 31% | | Redbridge | 506 | 62 | 55 | 623 | 901 | 69% | | Tower Hamlets | 1,382 | 961 | 544 | 2,887 | 2,999 | 96% | | Waltham Forest | 433 | 32 | 266 | 731 | 544 | 134% | | North East Subregion:| 3,525 | 1,750 | 1,184 | 6,459 | 9,697 | 67% | | Bexley | 172 | 0 | 50 | 222 | 338 | 66% | | Bromley | 311 | 52 | 125 | 488 | 480 | 102% | | Greenwich | 521 | 187 | 52 | 760 | 1,920 | 40% | | Lewisham | 695 | 154 | 74 | 923 | 859 | 107% | | Southwark | 730 | 143 | 174 | 1,047 | 1,103 | 95% | | South East Subregion:| 2,429 | 536 | 475 | 3,440 | 4,700 | 73% | | Croydon | 1,112 | 138 | 278 | 1,528 | 903 | 169% | | Kingston upon Thames | 184 | 0 | 0 | 184 | 349 | 53% | | Lambeth | 531 | 221 | 343 | 1,095 | 1,039 | 105% | | Merton | 509 | 65 | 200 | 774 | 352 | 220% | | Richmond upon Thames | 215 | 48 | 87 | 350 | 266 | 132% | | Sutton | 224 | 97 | 146 | 467 | 346 | 135% | | Wandsworth | 1,102 | 391 | 88 | 1,581 | 692 | 228% | | Borough Name | Market | Intermediate | Social rented | Total | Conventional component of housing target | Delivery as % of target | |------------------------------|--------|--------------|---------------|-------|------------------------------------------|------------------------| | South West Subregion: | 3,877 | 960 | 1,142 | 5,979 | 3,947 | 151% | | Brent | 446 | 259 | 226 | 931 | 915 | 102% | | Ealing | 519 | 218 | 91 | 828 | 833 | 99% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 141 | 115 | 197 | 453 | 393 | 115% | | Harrow | 542 | 152 | 76 | 770 | 360 | 214% | | Hillingdon | 608 | 42 | 135 | 785 | 317 | 248% | | Hounslow | 323 | 82 | 132 | 537 | 434 | 124% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 72 | 14 | 16 | 102 | 237 | 43% | | West Subregion: | 2,651 | 882 | 873 | 4,406 | 3,489 | 126% | | Total: | 17,816 | 5,284 | 5,202 | 28,302| 27,596 | 103% |

Source: London Development Database Table HPM 6a: Net total conventional completions in London, 2006/07 to 2008/09

| Borough Name | Total conventional completions (net) | Housing delivery targets | 3 year target\* | % of target achieved | |-----------------------|--------------------------------------|--------------------------|----------------|---------------------| | | 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 3 year total | London Plan 2004 Target | London Plan 2008 Target | | | | Barnet | 422 | 940 | 1,015 | 2,377 | 740 | 1,886 | 4,512 | 53 | | Camden | 518 | 476 | 892 | 1,886 | 750 | 437 | 1,624 | 116 | | Enfield | 713 | 957 | 333 | 2,003 | 560 | 367 | 1,294 | 155 | | Hackney | 1,149 | 1,575 | 2,047 | 4,771 | 565 | 926 | 2,417 | 197 | | Haringey | 893 | 545 | 740 | 2,178 | 720 | 595 | 1,910 | 114 | | Islington | 1,852 | 1,906 | 2,270 | 6,028 | 680 | 992 | 2,664 | 226 | | Westminster | 648 | 735 | 721 | 2,104 | 970 | 560 | 2,090 | 101 | | North Subregion: | 6,195 | 7,134 | 8,018 | 21,347 | 4,985 | 5,763 | 16,511 | 129 | | Barking and Dagenham | 410 | 818 | 387 | 1,615 | 445 | 1,191 | 2,827 | 57 | | City of London | 37 | 95 | 95 | 227 | 105 | 85 | 275 | 83 | | Havering | 857 | 483 | 648 | 1,988 | 320 | 510 | 1,340 | 148 | | Newham | 753 | 955 | 1,088 | 2,796 | 720 | 3,467 | 7,654 | 37 | | Redbridge | 1,031 | 621 | 623 | 2,275 | 500 | 901 | 2,302 | 99 | | Tower Hamlets | 2,504 | 2,294 | 2,887 | 7,685 | 1,825 | 2,999 | 7,823 | 98 | | Waltham Forest | 750 | 819 | 731 | 2,300 | 345 | 544 | 1,433 | 161 | | North East Subregion: | 6,342 | 6,085 | 6,459 | 18,886 | 4,260 | 9,697 | 23,654 | 80 | | Bexley | 241 | 269 | 222 | 732 | 265 | 338 | 941 | 78 | | Bromley | 890 | 709 | 488 | 2,087 | 555 | 480 | 1,515 | 138 | | Greenwich | 1,209 | 803 | 760 | 2,772 | 730 | 1,920 | 4,570 | 61 | | Lewisham | 371 | 876 | 923 | 2,170 | 560 | 859 | 2,278 | 95 | | Southwark | 1,945 | 1,300 | 1,047 | 4,292 | 1,165 | 1,103 | 3,371 | 127 | | South East Subregion: | 4,656 | 3,957 | 3,440 | 12,053 | 3,275 | 4,700 | 12,675 | 95 | | Borough Name | 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 3 year total | London Plan 2004 Target | London Plan 2008 Target | 3 year target\* | % of target achieved | |------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|--------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|----------------|---------------------| | Croydon | 1,030 | 1,461 | 1,528 | 4,019 | 670 | 903 | 2,476 | 162 | | Kingston upon Thames | 322 | 365 | 184 | 871 | 245 | 349 | 943 | 92 | | Lambeth | 1,128 | 1,231 | 1,095 | 3,454 | 1,069 | 1,039 | 3,147 | 110 | | Merton | 391 | 658 | 774 | 1,823 | 405 | 352 | 1,109 | 164 | | Richmond upon Thames | 252 | 415 | 350 | 1,017 | 245 | 266 | 777 | 131 | | Sutton | 274 | 621 | 467 | 1,362 | 365 | 346 | 1,057 | 129 | | Wandsworth | 1,451 | 1,028 | 1,581 | 4,060 | 775 | 692 | 2,159 | 188 | | South West Subregion: | 4,848 | 5,779 | 5,979 | 16,606 | 3,774 | 3,947 | 11,668 | 142 | | Brent | 926 | 772 | 931 | 2,629 | 485 | 915 | 2,315 | 114 | | Ealing | 1,347 | 1,399 | 828 | 3,574 | 545 | 833 | 2,211 | 162 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 623 | 510 | 453 | 1,586 | 295 | 393 | 1,081 | 147 | | Harrow | 620 | 373 | 770 | 1,763 | 260 | 360 | 980 | 180 | | Hillingdon | 193 | 431 | 785 | 1,409 | 380 | 317 | 1,014 | 139 | | Hounslow | 1,371 | 1,675 | 537 | 3,583 | 390 | 434 | 1,258 | 285 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 168 | 127 | 102 | 397 | 520 | 237 | 994 | 40 | | West Subregion: | 5,248 | 5,287 | 4,406 | 14,941 | 2,875 | 3,489 | 9,853 | 152 | | Total: | 27,289 | 28,242 | 28,302 | 83,833 | 19,169 | 27,596 | 74,361 | 113 |

Source: London Development Database Table HPM6b: Net total conventional affordable completions in London, 2006/07 to 2008/09

| Borough Name | Total conventional affordable completions (net) | % of conventional affordable completions (net) | |-----------------------|-------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------| | | 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 3 year total | 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 3 year average | | Barnet | 27 | 56 | 409 | 492 | 6% | 6% | 40% | 21% | | Camden | 219 | 115 | 414 | 748 | 42% | 24% | 46% | 40% | | Enfield | 225 | 444 | 73 | 742 | 32% | 46% | 22% | 37% | | Hackney | 468 | 713 | 915 | 2,096 | 41% | 45% | 45% | 44% | | Haringey | 312 | 211 | 339 | 862 | 35% | 39% | 46% | 40% | | Islington | 602 | 1,117 | 398 | 2,117 | 33% | 59% | 18% | 35% | | Westminster | 23 | 371 | 231 | 625 | 4% | 50% | 32% | 30% | | North Subregion: | 1,876 | 3,027 | 2,779 | 7,682 | 30% | 42% | 35% | 36% | | Barking and Dagenham | 135 | 215 | 157 | 507 | 33% | 26% | 41% | 31% | | City of London | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | | Havering | 178 | 125 | 301 | 604 | 21% | 26% | 46% | 30% | | Newham | 263 | 388 | 556 | 1,207 | 35% | 41% | 51% | 43% | | Redbridge | 310 | 54 | 117 | 481 | 30% | 9% | 19% | 21% | | Tower Hamlets | 823 | 787 | 1,505 | 3,115 | 33% | 34% | 52% | 41% | | Waltham Forest | 229 | 236 | 298 | 763 | 31% | 29% | 41% | 33% | | North East Subregion: | 1,938 | 1,805 | 2,934 | 6,677 | 31% | 30% | 45% | 35% | | Bexley | 115 | 134 | 50 | 299 | 48% | 50% | 23% | 41% | | Bromley | 142 | 267 | 177 | 586 | 16% | 38% | 36% | 28% | | Greenwich | 515 | 282 | 239 | 1,036 | 43% | 35% | 31% | 37% | | Lewisham | -81 | 233 | 228 | 380 | -22% | 27% | 25% | 18% | | Southwark | 735 | 576 | 319 | 1,630 | 38% | 44% | 30% | 38% | | South East Subregion: | 1,426 | 1,492 | 1,013 | 3,931 | 31% | 38% | 29% | 33% | | Croydon | 471 | 625 | 416 | 1,512 | 46% | 43% | 27% | 38% | | Borough Name | 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 3 year total | 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 3 year average | |------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|--------------|---------|---------|---------|---------------| | Kingston upon Thames | 54 | 109 | 0 | 163 | 17% | 30% | 0% | 19% | | Lambeth | 233 | 348 | 564 | 1,145 | 21% | 28% | 52% | 33% | | Merton | 145 | 244 | 265 | 654 | 37% | 37% | 34% | 36% | | Richmond upon Thames | 39 | 112 | 135 | 286 | 15% | 27% | 39% | 28% | | Sutton | -118 | 188 | 243 | 313 | -43% | 30% | 52% | 23% | | Wandsworth | 241 | 309 | 481 | 1,031 | 17% | 30% | 30% | 25% | | South West Subregion: | 1,065 | 1,935 | 2,104 | 5,104 | 22% | 33% | 35% | 31% | | Brent | 637 | 423 | 485 | 1,545 | 69% | 55% | 52% | 59% | | Ealing | 629 | 412 | 309 | 1,350 | 47% | 29% | 37% | 38% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 458 | 237 | 315 | 1,010 | 74% | 46% | 70% | 64% | | Harrow | 152 | 116 | 228 | 496 | 25% | 31% | 30% | 28% | | Hillingdon | 46 | 117 | 177 | 340 | 24% | 27% | 23% | 24% | | Hounslow | 572 | 793 | 214 | 1,579 | 42% | 47% | 40% | 44% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 64 | 13 | 30 | 107 | 38% | 10% | 29% | 27% | | West Subregion: | 2,558 | 2,111 | 1,758 | 6,427 | 49% | 40% | 40% | 43% | | Total: | 8,863 | 10,370 | 10,588 | 29,821 | 32% | 37% | 37% | 36% |

Source: London Development Database Note some figures for previous years data have changed from previous AMRs. This is due to the continual updating of the LDD system. Table HPM 7: Delivery of Affordable Homes in 2008/09

| Borough | By LA providing funding | By LA where homes located | |--------------------------|-------------------------|---------------------------| | | Social rented | Intermediate | Total | Social rented | Intermediate | Total | | Barnet | 120 | 80 | 200 | 120 | 80 | 200 | | Camden | 130 | 160 | 290 | 130 | 130 | 260 | | Enfield | 100 | 90 | 190 | 100 | 100 | 200 | | Hackney | 390 | 620 | 1,010 | 390 | 610 | 1,000 | | Haringey | 100 | 200 | 300 | 100 | 180 | 280 | | Islington | 280 | 100 | 380 | 280 | 90 | 370 | | Westminster | 200 | 140 | 340 | 200 | 110 | 310 | | North Total | 1,320 | 1,390 | 2,710 | 1,320 | 1,300 | 2,620 | | Barking & Dagenham | 160 | 60 | 220 | 160 | 80 | 240 | | City of London | 0 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 10 | | Havering | 270 | 340 | 610 | 270 | 350 | 620 | | Newham | 170 | 420 | 590 | 170 | 400 | 570 | | Redbridge | 100 | 150 | 250 | 100 | 160 | 260 | | Tower Hamlets | 550 | 760 | 1,310 | 550 | 730 | 1,280 | | Waltham Forest | 470 | 80 | 550 | 470 | 90 | 560 | | North East Total | 1,720 | 1,820 | 3,540 | 1,720 | 1,820 | 3,540 | | Bexley | 50 | 80 | 130 | 50 | 110 | 160 | | Bromley | 180 | 150 | 330 | 180 | 160 | 340 | | Greenwich | 280 | 200 | 480 | 280 | 190 | 470 | | Lewisham | 60 | 90 | 150 | 60 | 90 | 150 | | Southwark | 250 | 280 | 530 | 250 | 220 | 470 | | South East Total | 820 | 800 | 1,620 | 820 | 770 | 1,590 | | Croydon | 350 | 250 | 600 | 350 | 260 | 610 | | Kingston u Thames | 0 | 50 | 50 | 0 | 40 | 40 | | Lambeth | 230 | 270 | 500 | 230 | 220 | 450 | | Merton | 130 | 80 | 210 | 130 | 90 | 220 | | Richmond u Thames | 90 | 70 | 160 | 90 | 60 | 150 | | Sutton | 200 | 170 | 370 | 200 | 210 | 410 | | Wandsworth | 70 | 480 | 550 | 70 | 450 | 520 | | South West Total | 1,070 | 1,370 | 2,440 | 1,070 | 1,330 | 2,400 | | Brent | 410 | 260 | 670 | 410 | 240 | 650 | | Ealing | 310 | 240 | 550 | 310 | 220 | 530 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 170 | 120 | 290 | 170 | 100 | 270 | | Harrow | 80 | 170 | 250 | 80 | 150 | 230 | | Borough | By LA providing funding | By LA where homes located | |----------------------|-------------------------|---------------------------| | | Social rented | Intermediate | Total | Social rented | Intermediate | Total | | Hillingdon | 180 | 170 | 350 | 180 | 170 | 350 | | Hounslow | 60 | 500 | 560 | 60 | 490 | 550 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 120 | 60 | 180 | 120 | 40 | 160 | | West Total | 1,330 | 1,520 | 2,850 | 1,330 | 1,410 | 2,740 | | London Total | 6,260 | 6,900 | 13,160| 6,260 | 6,630 | 12,890|

Source: Communities and Local Government, Housing Live Tables 1001, 1002, 1006 and 1007. [http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/housingstatisticsby/affordablehousingsupply/livetables/](http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/housingstatisticsby/affordablehousingsupply/livetables/) Table HPM 8: 2008/09 Gross conventional completions by tenure

| Borough | Gross Conventional Completions | Social Rented | Total | Intermediate (% of total) | Social rented (% of total) | All affordable (% of total) | |--------------------------|--------------------------------|---------------|-------|---------------------------|----------------------------|----------------------------| | | Market | Intermediate | | | | | | Barnet | 758 | 77 | 315 | 1,150 | 7 | 27 | 34 | | Camden | 610 | 254 | 160 | 1,024 | 25 | 16 | 40 | | Enfield | 359 | 10 | 63 | 432 | 2 | 15 | 17 | | Hackney | 1,394 | 501 | 479 | 2,374 | 21 | 20 | 41 | | Haringey | 487 | 197 | 144 | 828 | 24 | 17 | 41 | | Islington | 2,070 | 58 | 389 | 2,517 | 2 | 15 | 18 | | Westminster | 723 | 92 | 141 | 956 | 10 | 15 | 24 | | North Sub-Region | 6,401 | 1,189 | 1,691 | 9,281 | 13 | 18 | 31 | | Barking and Dagenham | 257 | 101 | 56 | 414 | 24 | 14 | 38 | | City of London | 117 | 0 | 0 | 117 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Havering | 383 | 192 | 109 | 684 | 28 | 16 | 44 | | Newham | 595 | 402 | 185 | 1,182 | 34 | 16 | 50 | | Redbridge | 515 | 62 | 55 | 632 | 10 | 9 | 19 | | Tower Hamlets | 1,476 | 961 | 594 | 3,031 | 32 | 20 | 51 | | Waltham Forest | 553 | 32 | 270 | 855 | 4 | 32 | 35 | | North East Sub-region | 3,894 | 1,750 | 1,269 | 6,913 | 25 | 18 | 44 | | Bexley | 183 | 0 | 52 | 235 | 0 | 22 | 22 | | Bromley | 488 | 52 | 125 | 665 | 8 | 19 | 27 | | Greenwich | 568 | 187 | 266 | 1,021 | 18 | 26 | 44 | | Lewisham | 769 | 155 | 197 | 1,121 | 14 | 18 | 31 | | Merton | 583 | 65 | 200 | 848 | 8 | 24 | 31 | | Southwark | 781 | 145 | 191 | 1,117 | 13 | 17 | 30 | | South East Sub-region | 3,399 | 604 | 1,031 | 5,034 | 12 | 20 | 32 | | Croydon | 1,289 | 138 | 278 | 1,705 | 8 | 16 | 24 | | Kingston upon Thames | 230 | 0 | 0 | 230 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Lambeth | 708 | 221 | 346 | 1,275 | 17 | 27 | 44 | | Richmond upon Thames | 323 | 48 | 88 | 459 | 10 | 19 | 30 | | Sutton | 293 | 97 | 193 | 583 | 17 | 33 | 50 | | Wandsworth | 1,378 | 394 | 103 | 1,875 | 21 | 5 | 27 | | South West Sub-region | 4,221 | 898 | 1,008 | 6,127 | 15 | 16 | 31 | | Brent | 560 | 260 | 246 | 1,066 | 24 | 23 | 47 | | Borough | Gross Conventional Completions | Social Rented | Total | Intermediate (% of total) | Social rented (% of total) | All affordable (% of total) | |-------------------------------|--------------------------------|---------------|-------|---------------------------|---------------------------|-----------------------------| | | Market | Intermediate | | | | | | Ealing | 598 | 218 | 107 | 923 | 24 | 12 | 35 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 217 | 115 | 221 | 553 | 21 | 40 | 61 | | Harrow | 639 | 152 | 112 | 903 | 17 | 12 | 29 | | Hillingdon | 662 | 42 | 135 | 839 | 5 | 16 | 21 | | Hounslow | 378 | 82 | 161 | 621 | 13 | 26 | 39 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 180 | 14 | 16 | 210 | 7 | 8 | 14 | | West Sub-region | 3,234 | 883 | 998 | 5,115 | 17 | 20 | 37 | | Grand Total | **21,124** | **5,324** | **5,997** | **32,445** | **16** | **18** | **35** |

Source: London Development Database Table HPM 9: 2008/09 Net Conventional and Non self-contained Planning Approvals

| Borough | Net Conventional Approvals | Net Non-self contained | Gross Non-self contained | |--------------------------|----------------------------|------------------------|--------------------------| | | Market | Intermediate | Social Rented | Total | | | | Barnet | 2,560 | 293 | -117 | 2,736 | 0 | 0 | | Camden | 468 | 34 | 145 | 647 | 480 | 606 | | Enfield | 551 | 168 | 103 | 822 | 0 | 0 | | Hackney | 944 | 332 | -28 | 1,248 | 492 | 648 | | Haringey | 589 | 64 | 54 | 707 | 21 | 21 | | Islington | 1,182 | 268 | -144 | 1,306 | 257 | 420 | | Westminster | 617 | 22 | 101 | 740 | 13 | 83 | | North Sub-Region | 6,911 | 1,181 | 114 | 8,206 | 1,263 | 1,778 | | Barking and Dagenham | 878 | 287 | 558 | 1,723 | 116 | 116 | | City of London | 98 | 0 | 2 | 100 | 0 | 0 | | Havering | 445 | 18 | 114 | 577 | 0 | 0 | | Newham | 4,194 | 1,042 | 774 | 6,010 | 0 | 0 | | Redbridge | 166 | 12 | 23 | 201 | 0 | 0 | | Tower Hamlets | 4,437 | 579 | 1,156 | 6,172 | 269 | 447 | | Waltham Forest | 384 | 15 | 35 | 434 | -10 | 0 | | North East Sub-region | 9,626 | 1,666 | 2,102 | 13,394| 375 | 563 | | Bexley | 349 | 33 | 75 | 457 | 0 | 0 | | Bromley | 720 | 60 | 184 | 964 | -9 | 0 | | Greenwich | 600 | 89 | 190 | 879 | 0 | 0 | | Lewisham | 1,401 | 285 | 338 | 2,024 | -7 | 5 | | Southwark | 2,600 | 432 | 342 | 3,374 | 103 | 123 | | South East Sub-region | 6,161 | 945 | 1,226 | 8,332 | 87 | 128 | | Croydon | 1,989 | 250 | 311 | 2,550 | -13 | 23 | | Kingston upon Thames | 540 | 22 | 105 | 667 | 214 | 214 | | Lambeth | 2,040 | 257 | 99 | 2,396 | 8 | 29 | | Merton | 491 | 46 | 97 | 634 | 3 | 10 | | Richmond upon Thames | 412 | 18 | 48 | 478 | -6 | 9 | | Sutton | 526 | 36 | -2 | 560 | 0 | 0 | | Wandsworth | 1,441 | 262 | 130 | 1,833 | -14 | 0 | | South West Sub-region | 6,948 | 845 | 691 | 8,484 | 192 | 285 | | Brent | 674 | 133 | 15 | 822 | 2 | 45 | | Ealing | 831 | 20 | 36 | 887 | -15 | 18 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 275 | 4 | 35 | 314 | -69 | 2 | | Harrow | 256 | 29 | 16 | 301 | -40 | 0 | | Hillingdon | 1,084 | 118 | 235 | 1,437 | 702 | 1,403 | | Borough | Net Conventional Approvals | Net Non-self contained | Gross Non-self contained | |-------------------------|----------------------------|------------------------|--------------------------| | | Market | Intermediate | Social Rented | Total | | | | Hounslow | 877 | 248 | 281 | 1,406 | 8 | 8 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 346 | 53 | 79 | 478 | -35 | 8 | | West Sub-region | 4,343 | 605 | 697 | 5,645 | 553 | 1,484 | | London Total | 34,965 | 5,529 | 5,390 | 45,884| 2,470 | 4,238 |

Source: London Development Database Table HPM 10: 2008/09 Gross residential units completed by bedroom size and tenure

| London | 1 Bed | 2 Bed | 3 Bed | 4+ Bed | Total | |--------|-------|-------|-------|--------|-------| | Social | 1,702 | 2,609 | 1,326 | 504 | 6,141 | | Intermediate | 2,622 | 2,432 | 199 | 13 | 5,266 | | Market | 8,825 | 9,588 | 1,858 | 867 | 21,138| | Total | 13,149| 14,629| 3,383 | 1,384 | 32,545|

| % | 1 Bed | 2 Bed | 3 Bed | 4+ Bed | Total | |---------|-------|-------|-------|--------|-------| | Social | 28% | 42% | 22% | 8% | 100% | | Intermediate | 50% | 46% | 4% | 0% | 100% | | Market | 42% | 45% | 9% | 4% | 100% | | Total | 40% | 45% | 10% | 5% | 100% |